The paper introduces a framework that combines a Geometric Vision Parser and a Symbolic Solver to enable a Large Language Model to solve complex plane geometry problems. By translating diagrams into symbolic representations and performing formal deductions, the approach reduces hallucinations and produces interpretable, human-like solutions. Experiments on a new benchmark from 2025 Chinese Zhongkao exams show performance comparable to Gemini 2.5 Pro.
By Weichen Dai, Rafael Medeiros Cabral, Ziyi Shou, Yan Cao, Xin Shen, Dongcai Lu, Yi Zhou
arXiv:2605. 16385v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Geometric problem solving, as a typical multimodal reasoning problem, has attracted much attention and made great progress recently, however most of works focus on plane geometry while usually fail in solid geometry due to 3D spatial diagrams and complex reasoning.
By Ruoran Xu, Haoyu Cheng, Bin Dong, Qiufeng Wang
arXiv:2608. 08964v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The generation of mathematically precise diagrams from tex- tual prompts has emerged as a critical yet underexplored capability of Large Language Models (LLMs).
By Harish Kashyap, Kiran Byadarhaly, Sriram Chakaravarthy, Sanyukta Tuti, Aryan Mistry
arXiv:2606. 14176v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Geometry problem generation is useful for AI-assisted education and multimodal mathematical reasoning, but reliable synthesis remains difficult because the problem statement, diagram, constraints, and solution should be mutually consistent.
By Xiaoxian Duan, Zequn Liu, Yingce Xia
arXiv:2606. 27926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Geometry Problem Solving have increasingly adopt the neuro-symbolic paradigm, combining neural intuition with symbolic rigor.
By Can Li, Ting Zhang, Junbo Zhao, Hua Huang
PhysElite is a new bilingual multimodal benchmark designed to evaluate large language models on Olympiad-level physics problems. It contains 11,586 problems, each paired with visual diagrams, step-by-step bilingual Chinese‑English solution derivations, and the final answer. Benchmarking 18 models revealed that even the best reaches only 33.7% accuracy, and a step‑level analysis highlights where models falter in reasoning.
By Ruoran Xu, Wending Gao, Liyunfeng Chen, Aixin Shi, Haoyu Cheng, Zixiang Fang, Yiqiang Zou, Qiufeng Wang