Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study disentangles perception from reasoning in multimodal models by diagnosing specific failure modes in physics and geometry tasks, revealing that diagram misinterpretation often triggers distinct downstream calculation or conceptual errors depending on the domain. The findings highlight a critical gap where models struggle to recover from visual input flaws compared to text-only scenarios, exposing limitations in current scientific reasoning capabilities despite heavy pretraining.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Lost in Perception: Isolating Perceptual and Reasoning Failures in Multimodal Physics and Geometry Reasoning

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.18991v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal LLMs report strong performance on scientific reasoning benchmarks, yet most treat perception and reasoning as a single measurable process. We introduce a five-task diagnostic experiment across physics and geometry benchmarks that isolates failures to perception, reasoning, or both. Incorrect diagram interpretation degrades performance even on problems models solve correctly from text alone, and accuracy generally rises from raw images to human-authored captions. Recovery under corrected captions is high for some models, separating perception-blocked failures from genuine reasoning bottlenecks. Which reasoning error follows a perception failure depends on domain: physics failures resolve into calculation errors, geometry into conceptual misapplication. As a discussion beyond our core experiments, InternS1-mini, despite heavy scientific pretraining and thinking capabilities, falls below the weakest model from experiments on every task, with reasoning traces frequently truncating before completion.

Abstract:Multimodal LLMs report strong performance on scientific reasoning benchmarks, yet most treat perception and reasoning as a single measurable process. We introduce a five-task diagnostic experiment across physics and geometry benchmarks that isolates failures to perception, reasoning, or both. Incorrect diagram interpretation degrades performance even on problems models solve correctly from text alone, and accuracy generally rises from raw images to human-authored captions. Recovery under corrected captions is high for some models, separating perception-blocked failures from genuine reasoning bottlenecks. Which reasoning error follows a perception failure depends on domain: physics failures resolve into calculation errors, geometry into conceptual misapplication. As a discussion beyond our core experiments, InternS1-mini, despite heavy scientific pretraining and thinking capabilities, falls below the weakest model from experiments on every task, with reasoning traces frequently truncating before completion.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.18991 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.18991v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.18991 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 225 words

Related coverage