Diagnosing the Reference Gap: What Visual Scaffolds Can and Cannot Fix in Multimodal Reasoning

Recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) achieve strong performance on visual reasoning benchmarks, yet it remains unclear to what extent such performance reflects reasoning directly grounded in visual evidence. We introduce VisReason, a benchmark for vision-centric reasoning in everyday scenarios where perception and inference are tightly coupled. VisReason contains 1,505 questions across 10 categories spanning perceptual, structural, and conceptual reasoning. Our evaluation shows that VisReason poses a qualitatively different challenge from existing benchmarks, exposing substantial gaps between humans and current MLLMs and revealing limited benefits from test-time reasoning strategies. VisReason offers a focused diagnostic for evaluating vision-centric reasoning beyond language.

Evaluation of multimodal reasoning models is typically reduced to a single accuracy score, implicitly treating reasoning as a unitary capability. We introduce MathLens, a benchmark of textbook-style geometry problems that exposes this assumption by operationally decomposing performance into perception, reasoning, and multimodal-specific components. Each problem is derived from a symbolic specification and accompanied by visual diagrams, text-only variants, multimodal questions, and targeted perceptual probes, enabling controlled measurement of each component. Using this decomposition, we show that common training strategies are associated with systematically different capability profiles that are invisible under aggregate accuracy. Across the models we study, reinforcement learning primarily improves perceptual grounding and robustness to diagram variation, while our analysis suggests that textual SFT yields gains through reflective reasoning. In contrast, as perception and reasoning improve, a growing fraction of remaining errors fall outside these components and are categorized as multimodal-specific. These results suggest that apparent progress in multimodal reasoning reflects shifting balances among subskills rather than uniform advancement, motivating evaluation beyond scalar accuracy.

Visual counting benchmarks report whether vision-language models produce the correct number, but not whether errors arise from perception or reasoning. We introduce DecoyCount, a benchmark built from 1,660 real-world images with designed decoys across seven mechanisms, along with paired prompts: a neutral question, a matched alignment cue, and a novel multi-hop, multi-image question that situates the same counting problem in a realistic scenario. Using this design, we find that counting failures are induced partly by visual misalignment: models can execute the intended counting process when cue-guided but fail to select it unaided, and we term this difference in accuracy the reasoning-alignment gap. Despite being highly capable on general reasoning, frontier models remain below 50% accuracy on our benchmark, while alignment gaps range from 11.8-22.1 percentage points; strikingly, we observe that more capable models, greater thinking budgets, and agentic processes often induce larger gaps. Because humans may bring context that models lack, we test whether textual underspecification contributes to misalignment using a scenario-based multi-hop condition without explicit hinting, but this added context does not improve aggregate performance. Our analysis concludes that stronger general reasoning does not by itself generalize to aligned visual reasoning, leaving misalignment with human visual expectations as a substantial component of the remaining deficit.