PRISM: A Category-Theoretic Framework for Measuring and Refining Multimodal Analogies

Metaphor enables the understanding of abstract concepts through cross-domain mappings while conveying affective attitudes. In multimodal scenarios, visual and textual information jointly construct Target--Source mappings, requiring both conceptual understanding and cross-modal reasoning. However, existing benchmarks mainly evaluate metaphor understanding through isolated subtasks and lack evidence-grounded explanations, making it difficult to assess whether models establish mappings grounded in visual and textual cues.To address these limitations, we introduce M$^3$R-Bench, a unified and evidence-grounded benchmark containing 1,000 image--text instances with human-verified annotations. Guided by Conceptual Metaphor Theory and theories of nonliteral language understanding, M$^3$R-Bench provides joint annotations for metaphor occurrence, Target--Source mapping, sentiment, and stage-wise explanations following ``evidence identification--mapping establishment--sentiment inference.''Evaluations on M$^3$R-Bench reveal that existing models often overlook visual evidence, rely on superficial textual cues, and produce inaccurate Target--Source mappings, exposing a cross-modal evidence--mapping mismatch. To address this mismatch, we propose M$^3$R-Reasoner, which combines curriculum-based reasoning supervision with task-aware reinforcement learning to align model reasoning with metaphor interpretation. Experiments show that, with only an 8B-parameter backbone, M$^3$R-Reasoner outperforms larger proprietary MLLMs across four unified-task metrics and improves Visual Evidence and Sentiment Justification scores over GPT-5.5 by 28.45 and 30.11 points, respectively, while surpassing Claude-Sonnet-4.6 by 8.00 points in mean rubric score. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/hongshi4/M3R-Bench.

Modern multimodal generative models can synthesize visually compelling images and videos, but it remains unclear whether this visual fluency reflects genuine reasoning: when prompted to generate a solution, can a model preserve the physical, logical, spatial, and temporal constraints a task requires, or does it merely produce plausible-looking media? To answer this question, we introduce MMGR (Multi-Modal Generative Reasoning Benchmark and Evaluation), a benchmark for evaluating generative reasoning across video, image, and language-based systems. MMGR covers 10 tasks from three domains (Abstract Reasoning, Embodied Navigation, and Physical Commonsense) and probes five reasoning abilities: Physical, Logical, 2D Spatial, 3D Spatial, and Temporal. Its evaluation emphasizes answer-verifiable tasks and, for video generation, process-aware chain-of-frame reasoning, where intermediate frames must form valid steps toward the target outcome rather than visually smooth but incorrect transitions. Evaluating state-of-the-art video generators, image generators, and LLM/VLM baselines reveals a sharp gap between visual quality and reasoning correctness: video models perform best on Physical Commonsense, but remain weak on symbolic tasks such as Sudoku, ARC, and Math, and brittle in cross-view embodied navigation. Image generators often outperform video generators on embodied navigation despite lacking temporal outputs, showing that longer visual generation does not automatically yield stronger reasoning. MMGR reframes evaluation of multimodal generation from whether outputs look realistic to whether they solve the underlying reasoning problem.

Unified multimodal models (UMMs) aim to integrate multimodal understanding and generation within a unified architecture, yet it remains unclear to what extent textual and visual modalities are aligned. To investigate this question, we use reasoning-guided image generation as a diagnostic task, where models produce textual reasoning first and then generate images. We introduce UReason, a benchmark for evaluating reasoning-to-generation alignment in this paradigm, consisting of 2,000 human-curated and human-verified instances spanning five reasoning-intensive tasks: Code, Arithmetic, Spatial, Attribute, and Text. To enable controlled analysis, we develop an evaluation framework that compares direct generation, reasoning-guided generation, and decontextualized generation, which conditions only on the refined prompt extracted from reasoning. Across eight widely used open-source UMMs, while we find that reasoning-guided generation yields improvements over direct generation, somewhat surprisingly, decontextualized generation consistently outperforms reasoning-guided generation by a large margin. Our further analyses suggest that the intended visual semantics in textual reasoning are not reliably reflected in the generated images, despite their unified design and training. Overall, UReason serves as a practical litmus test for reasoning-to-generation alignment and provides a challenging benchmark for developing next-generation, more tightly aligned UMMs.