GSM8K-V
Vision-language models solve GSM8K word problems that are redrawn as multi-image visual scenes, so the facts must be read from pictures.
32 upvotes on Hugging Face papers.
- Made by
- Zhejiang University
- Released
- September 2025
- Kind
- Visual math and diagrams
- Level
- School
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Short answer
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Gemini 3 Pro #55 on the capability index
- Last model added
- April 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Mathematical reasoning is a key capability for vision-language models (VLMs), yet current benchmarks mainly evaluate text-based or explicitly symbolic visual inputs. It remains unclear whether VLMs can reason mathematically when information must be perceived and inferred from images rather than read from explicit symbols. We introduce GSM8K-V, a benchmark transforming GSM8K into multi-image sequences with semantic equivalence preserved. By mapping text-based problems into visual form via an automated pipeline and human verification, we curate 1,319 high-quality samples. In GSM8K-V, quantities must be extracted through visual perception, and reasoning chains must be reconstructed by integrating implicit cues across scenes. Evaluation of 34 VLMs reveals a striking modality gap: while most models exceed 90% on text, the best model achieves only 59% on GSM8K-V, far below the 91% human accuracy. Notably, models enhanced for visual math reasoning show no improvement on GSM8K-V despite large gains on existing benchmarks, confirming that it evaluates a distinct capability. Error analysis shows that the primary bottleneck lies in Implicit Visual Inference Error (IVIE), where models fail to recover visual semantics that are implied rather than explicitly stated. Our code and data are released at https://github.com/ZJU-REAL/GSM8K-V.
Gemini 3 Pro leads with 59.1% among models released by April 2026
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
The newest model with a score here came out in April 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 59.1
Gemini 3 Pro
- 47.3 Kimi K2.6
- 46.9 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified)
- 42.1
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- 39.9
Qwen3.5-27B
- 37.8 GLM-4.6V
- 31.7
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B
- 31.7 Llama-4-17B-128E-Instruct
- 30.1 GPT-5
- 29.6 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified)
- 28.6 Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B
- 28.3 GLM-4.5V
- 27.9
InternVL3.5-241B-A28B
- 27.9
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- 27.8
Qwen3.5-9B
- 27.4
Ovis2.5-9B
- 26.8
InternVL3.5-38B
- 26.7 Llama-4-17B-16E-Instruct
- 26.5 Qwen3-VL-8B
- 26.0
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- 25.9
Step 3
- 23.2 QVQ-Max-Latest
- 22.8
InternVL3.5-30B-A3B
- 21.9
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 21.8
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
- 19.6
MiniCPM-V 4.5
- 15.2
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 13.5
Ovis2.5-2B
- 11.6 Kimi-VL-A3B-Thinking-2506
- 11.0
MiniCPM-V 4.6
- 10.8
InternVL3.5-8B
- 1
Gemini 3 Pro 59.1%
- 2 Kimi K2.6 47.3%
- 3 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 46.9%
- 4
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B thinking 42.1%
- 5
Qwen3.5-27B 39.9%
- 6 GLM-4.6V 37.8%
- 7
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B thinking 31.7%
- 8 Llama-4-17B-128E-Instruct 31.7%
- 9 GPT-5 30.1%
- 10 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 29.6%
- 11 Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B thinking 28.6%
- 12 GLM-4.5V 28.3%
- 13
InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 27.9%
- 14
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct 27.9%
- 15
Qwen3.5-9B 27.8%
- 16
Ovis2.5-9B 27.4%
- 17
InternVL3.5-38B 26.8%
- 18 Llama-4-17B-16E-Instruct 26.7%
- 19 Qwen3-VL-8B thinking 26.5%
- 20
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct 26%
- 21
Step 3 25.9%
- 22 QVQ-Max-Latest 23.2%
- 23
InternVL3.5-30B-A3B 22.8%
- 24
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 21.9%
- 25
Qwen2.5-VL-32B 21.8%
- 26
MiniCPM-V 4.5 19.6%
- 27
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 15.2%
- 28
Ovis2.5-2B 13.5%
- 29 Kimi-VL-A3B-Thinking-2506 11.6%
- 30
MiniCPM-V 4.6 thinking 11%
- 31
InternVL3.5-8B 10.8%
Source: Official GSM8K-V leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 59.1% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Kimi K2.6 | 47.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) | 46.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | | 42.1% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 39.9% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | GLM-4.6V | 37.8% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 31.7% | thinking | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Llama-4-17B-128E-Instruct | 31.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 9 | GPT-5 | 30.1% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) | 29.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B | 28.6% | thinking | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | GLM-4.5V | 28.3% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 27.9% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 27.9% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 27.8% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 27.4% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 26.8% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | Llama-4-17B-16E-Instruct | 26.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | Qwen3-VL-8B | 26.5% | thinking | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 26% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | | 25.9% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | QVQ-Max-Latest | 23.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 23 | | 22.8% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 21.9% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 21.8% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | | 19.6% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | | 15.2% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | | 13.5% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | Kimi-VL-A3B-Thinking-2506 | 11.6% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | | 11% | thinking | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 31 | | 10.8% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Scores at each effort level
Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.
Source: Official GSM8K-V leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | 59.1% | ||||
| Kimi K2.6 | 47.3% | ||||
| | thinking | 42.1% | |||
| | 40.1% | ||||
| | 39.9% | ||||
| GLM-4.6V | 37.8% | ||||
| | thinking | 31.7% | |||
| | 30.7% | ||||
| GPT-5 | 30.1% | ||||
| GLM-4.5V | 28.3% | ||||
| | 27.9% | ||||
| | 27.9% | ||||
| | 27.8% | ||||
| | 27.4% | ||||
| | 26.8% | ||||
| | 26% | ||||
| | 25.9% | ||||
| | 22.8% | ||||
| | 21.9% | ||||
| | 21.8% | ||||
| | 19.6% | ||||
| | 15.2% | ||||
| | 13.5% | ||||
| Kimi-VL-A3B-Thinking-2506 | 11.6% | ||||
| | thinking | 11% | |||
| | 10.8% | ||||
| | 9.48% |
2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in September 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official GSM8K-V leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official GSM8K-V leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Vision
- MMMU In use 11.5K college-level multimodal questions across 30 subjects. Multiple-choice and open accuracy. GPT-5.1 85.4%
- MMMU-Pro In use Harder MMMU: college-level multimodal questions with more options and vision-only inputs to remove text shortcuts. GPT-5.6 Sol 84.6%
- CharXiv In use Chart understanding on real arXiv figures. Reasoning questions require synthesizing information from complex charts. Claude Fable 5 93.5%
- MATH-Vision (MathVision) In use 3,040 competition math problems with visual context. Answer accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 97.7%
- MMStar In use Models answer 1,500 human-curated image questions that cannot be solved without the image, across 6 core capabilities. Scored by accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 85.9%
- ChartQA In use Models answer human-written and generated questions about chart images that need visual and arithmetic reasoning. Scored by relaxed accuracy with a 5 percent numeric tolerance.
Command A Vision 90.9%