📝 SummarXiv

Abstract

Multimodal reasoning models have recently shown promise on challenging domains such as olympiad-level geometry, yet their evaluation remains dominated by aggregate accuracy, a single score that obscures where and how models are improving. We introduce MathLens, a benchmark designed to disentangle the subskills of multimodal reasoning while preserving the complexity of textbook-style geometry problems. The benchmark separates performance into three components: Perception: extracting information from raw inputs, Reasoning: operating on available information, and Integration: selecting relevant perceptual evidence and applying it within reasoning. To support each test, we provide annotations: visual diagrams, textual descriptions to evaluate reasoning in isolation, controlled questions that require both modalities, and probes for fine-grained perceptual skills, all derived from symbolic specifications of the problems to ensure consistency and robustness. Our analysis reveals that different training approaches have uneven effects: First, reinforcement learning chiefly strengthens perception, especially when supported by textual supervision, while textual SFT indirectly improves perception through reflective reasoning. Second, reasoning improves only in tandem with perception. Third, integration remains the weakest capacity, with residual errors concentrated there once other skills advance. Finally, robustness diverges: RL improves consistency under diagram variation, whereas multimodal SFT reduces it through overfitting. We will release all data and experimental logs.