Despite strong performance on vision-language tasks, Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) struggle with mathematical problem-solving, with both open-source and state-of-the-art models falling short of human performance on visual-math benchmarks. To systematically examine visual-mathematical reasoning in MLLMs, we (1) evaluate their understanding of geometric primitives, (2) test multi-step reasoning, and (3) explore a potential solution to improve visual reasoning capabilities. Our findings reveal fundamental shortcomings in shape recognition, with top models achieving under 50% accuracy in identifying regular polygons. We analyze these failures through the lens of dual-process theory and show that MLLMs rely on System 1 (intuitive, memorized associations) rather than System 2 (deliberate reasoning). Consequently, MLLMs fail to count the sides of both familiar and novel shapes, suggesting they have neither learned the concept of “sides” nor effectively process visual inputs. Finally, we propose Visually Cued Chain-of-Thought (VC-CoT) prompting, which enhances multi-step mathematical reasoning by explicitly referencing visual annotations in diagrams, boosting GPT-4o’s accuracy on an irregular polygon side-counting task from 7% to 93%. Our findings suggest that System 2 reasoning in MLLMs remains an open problem, and visually-guided prompting is essential for successfully engaging visual reasoning.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have gained prominence due to their success in solving complex cross-modal tasks. However, the internal mechanisms of VLMs, particularly the roles of cross-attention and self-attention in multimodal integration, are not fully understood. To address this gap, we introduce NOTICE, a Gaussian-Noise-free Text-Image Corruption and Evaluation pipeline for mechanistic interpretability in VLMs. NOTICE introduces Semantic Image Pairs (SIP) corruption, the first visual counterpart to Symmetric Token Replacement (STR) for text. Through NOTICE, we uncover a set of “universal attention heads” in BLIP and LLaVA that consistently contribute across different tasks and modalities. In BLIP, cross-attention heads implement object detection, object suppression, and outlier suppression, whereas important self-attention heads in LLaVA only perform outlier suppression. Notably, our findings reveal that cross-attention heads perform image-grounding, while self-attention in LLaVA heads do not, highlighting key differences in how VLM architectures handle multimodal learning.