🤖 AI Summary
This study investigates whether current text-to-image generation models can preserve mathematical correctness when producing visual representations—such as diagrams or geometric constructions—required to solve mathematical problems. To this end, the authors construct a benchmark of 900 tasks spanning seven core mathematical domains and introduce, for the first time, an automated evaluation framework tailored to mathematical visual generation. This framework combines executable verifiers with a Script-as-a-Judge protocol to enable objective assessment. Experimental results reveal that even the best closed-source model achieves only 42.0% overall accuracy, while open-source models generally score below 11%, approaching 0% on structured tasks. These findings demonstrate that existing text-to-image models fundamentally lack the capability to generate mathematically valid visual content.
📝 Abstract
Modern generative models have demonstrated the ability to solve challenging mathematical problems. In many real-world settings, however, mathematical solutions must be expressed visually through diagrams, plots, geometric constructions, and structured symbolic layouts, where correctness depends on precise visual composition. Can generative models still do so when the answer must be rendered visually rather than written in text? To study this problem, we introduce MathGen, a rigorous benchmark of 900 problems spanning seven core domains, each paired with an executable verifier under a Script-as-a-Judge protocol for deterministic and objective evaluation. Experiments on representative open-source and proprietary text-to-image models show that mathematical fidelity remains a major bottleneck: even the best closed-source model reaches only 42.0% overall accuracy, while open-source models achieve just ~ 1-11%, often near 0% on structured tasks. Overall, current T2I models remain far from competent at even elementary mathematical visual generation.