Evaluating the symbolic reasoning of large language models (LLMs) calls for geometry benchmarks that require multi-step proofs grounded in both text and diagrams. However, existing benchmarks are often limited in scale and rarely provide visually grounded multiple-choice questions, limiting reliable evaluation of complex reasoning. We introduce GeoChallenge, a dataset of 90K automatically generated multiple-choice geometry proof problems, each requiring multi-step reasoning over aligned textual descriptions and diagrams. GeoChallenge provides fine-grained complexity ratings and formal language annotations to enable controlled evaluation. Experiments on multiple advanced LLMs show a clear performance gap between models and humans (the best-performing model, GPT-5-nano, achieves 75.89 exact match vs. 94.74 for humans). Further analysis also reveals three common failure patterns of LLMs: (1) exact match failures under the multiple-choice setting; (2) weak visual reliance; and (3) overextended reasoning without convergence.

Geometry problem solving (GPS) poses significant challenges for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in diagram comprehension, knowledge application, long-step reasoning, and auxiliary line construction. However, current benchmarks lack fine-grained evaluation for long-step problems necessitating auxiliary construction. To address these limitations, we present GeoLaux, a fine-grained annotated dataset comprising 2186 calculation and proof problems. It features long-step reasoning (with an average solution length of 6.51 steps, maximum of 24 steps) and auxiliary line construction (required in 41.8% of problems). Building on the dataset, we conduct a comprehensive five-dimensional evaluation of 23 leading MLLMs. The evaluation yields three pivotal findings: First, models perform significantly worse on long-step problems compared to short-step ones, with 18 models exhibiting a performance drop of over 50%. Second, it is crucial to enhance models’ understanding, awareness, and proficiency in auxiliary line construction, which is vital for overall geometric reasoning. Third, limited answer hints effectively improve process correctness, whereas explicit answers lead models to neglect intermediate reasoning steps. These findings position GeoLaux both to benchmark MLLMs geometry reasoning abilities and to guide their improvement. Data and code are available at https://github.com/Candice-yu/GeoLaux