MathCanvas-Bench
Models solve 3,000 math problems that call for interleaved visual and textual solutions, such as drawing auxiliary lines in geometry.
Released with the BAGEL-Canvas model. The scoring field is a guess.
- Made by
- Shi et al. (MathCanvas team)
- Released
- October 2025
- Kind
- Visual math and diagrams
- Level
- School
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Short answer
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5 #70 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- February 2026, dropped before it saturated
- Last model added
- February 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have excelled in textual reasoning, they struggle with mathematical domains like geometry that intrinsically rely on visual aids. Existing approaches to Visual Chain-of-Thought (VCoT) are often limited by rigid external tools or fail to generate the high-fidelity, strategically-timed diagrams necessary for complex problem-solving. To bridge this gap, we introduce MathCanvas, a comprehensive framework designed to endow unified Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) with intrinsic VCoT capabilities for mathematics. Our approach consists of two phases. First, a Visual Manipulation stage pre-trains the model on a novel 15.2M-pair corpus, comprising 10M caption-to-diagram pairs (MathCanvas-Imagen) and 5.2M step-by-step editing trajectories (MathCanvas-Edit), to master diagram generation and editing. Second, a Strategic Visual-Aided Reasoning stage fine-tunes the model on MathCanvas-Instruct, a new 219K-example dataset of interleaved visual-textual reasoning paths, teaching it when and how to leverage visual aids. To facilitate rigorous evaluation, we introduce MathCanvas-Bench, a challenging benchmark with 3K problems that require models to produce interleaved visual-textual solutions. Our model, BAGEL-Canvas, trained under this framework, achieves an 86% relative improvement over strong LMM baselines on MathCanvas-Bench, demonstrating excellent generalization to other public math benchmarks. Our work provides a complete toolkit-framework, datasets, and benchmark-to unlock complex, human-like visual-aided reasoning in LMMs. Project Page: https://mathcanvas.github.io/
Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) tops the leaderboard with 47.9%
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. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders. The best model we track is Seed1.6-Thinking, at 44.1%.
Seed2.0 Pro leads with 61.9%, claims included
Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.
The newest model with a score here came out in October 2025, 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
- 47.9 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified)
- 44.1
Seed1.6-Thinking
- 43.5 GPT-5
- 40.9
Qwen3-VL-Plus
- 39.3 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified)
- 35.6 GLM-4.5V
- 33.2 Nano-Banana
- 25.0 Claude Sonnet 4
- 21.9 BAGEL-Canvas
- 21.2
Gemini 2.0 Flash
- 21.1
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 19.0 GPT-4.1
- 17.1
Keye-VL-1.5-8B
- 16.7
InternVL3.5-8B
- 15.8
Gemma 3 27B
- 15.4
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
- 14.6 GPT-4.1 mini
- 11.7
InternVL3.5-30B-A3B
- 9.90 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified)
- 8.90
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 8.30
BAGEL
- 8.00 BAGEL-Zebra-CoT
- 1 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) thinking; complete 47.9%
- 2
Seed1.6-Thinking thinking; complete 44.1%
- 3 GPT-5 thinking; complete 43.5%
- 4
Qwen3-VL-Plus thinking; complete 40.9%
- 5 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) thinking; complete 39.3%
- 6 GLM-4.5V thinking; complete 35.6%
- 7 Nano-Banana non-thinking; complete 33.2%
- 8 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking; complete 25%
- 9 BAGEL-Canvas non-thinking; complete 21.9%
- 10
Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025, non-thinking; complete 21.2%
- 11
Qwen2.5-VL-72B non-thinking; complete 21.1%
- 12 GPT-4.1 non-thinking; complete 19%
- 13
Keye-VL-1.5-8B thinking; complete 17.1%
- 14
InternVL3.5-8B non-thinking; complete 16.7%
- 15
Gemma 3 27B non-thinking; complete 15.8%
- 16
Qwen2.5-VL-32B non-thinking; complete 15.4%
- 17 GPT-4.1 mini non-thinking; complete 14.6%
- 18
InternVL3.5-30B-A3B non-thinking; complete 11.7%
- 19 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) non-thinking; complete 9.90%
- 20
Qwen2.5-VL-7B non-thinking; complete 8.90%
- 21
BAGEL non-thinking; complete 8.30%
- 22 BAGEL-Zebra-CoT non-thinking; complete 8.00%
Source: Official MathCanvas-Bench leaderboard
- 61.9
Seed2.0 Pro
- 44.1
Seed1.6-Thinking
- 43.5 GPT-5
- 40.9
Qwen3-VL-Plus
- 35.6 GLM-4.5V
- 25.0 Claude Sonnet 4
- 21.2
Gemini 2.0 Flash
- 21.1
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 19.0 GPT-4.1
- 17.1
Keye-VL-1.5-8B
- 16.7
InternVL3.5-8B
- 15.8
Gemma 3 27B
- 15.4
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
- 14.6 GPT-4.1 mini
- 11.7
InternVL3.5-30B-A3B
- 8.90
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 8.30
BAGEL
- 1
Seed2.0 Pro 61.9%
- 2
Seed1.6-Thinking thinking; complete 44.1%
- 3 GPT-5 thinking; complete 43.5%
- 4
Qwen3-VL-Plus thinking; complete 40.9%
- 5 GLM-4.5V thinking; complete 35.6%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking; complete 25%
- 7
Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025, non-thinking; complete 21.2%
- 8
Qwen2.5-VL-72B non-thinking; complete 21.1%
- 9 GPT-4.1 non-thinking; complete 19%
- 10
Keye-VL-1.5-8B thinking; complete 17.1%
- 11
InternVL3.5-8B non-thinking; complete 16.7%
- 12
Gemma 3 27B non-thinking; complete 15.8%
- 13
Qwen2.5-VL-32B non-thinking; complete 15.4%
- 14 GPT-4.1 mini non-thinking; complete 14.6%
- 15
InternVL3.5-30B-A3B non-thinking; complete 11.7%
- 16
Qwen2.5-VL-7B non-thinking; complete 8.90%
- 17
BAGEL non-thinking; complete 8.30%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official MathCanvas-Bench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) | 47.9% | thinking; complete | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 44.1% | thinking; complete | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GPT-5 | 43.5% | thinking; complete | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 40.9% | thinking; complete | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) | 39.3% | thinking; complete | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | GLM-4.5V | 35.6% | thinking; complete | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Nano-Banana | 33.2% | non-thinking; complete | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 25% | thinking; complete | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | BAGEL-Canvas | 21.9% | non-thinking; complete | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 21.2% | non-thinking; complete | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 21.1% | non-thinking; complete | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | GPT-4.1 | 19% | non-thinking; complete | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 17.1% | thinking; complete | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 16.7% | non-thinking; complete | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 15.8% | non-thinking; complete | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 15.4% | non-thinking; complete | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | GPT-4.1 mini | 14.6% | non-thinking; complete | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | | 11.7% | non-thinking; complete | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) | 9.90% | non-thinking; complete | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | | 8.90% | non-thinking; complete | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | | 8.30% | non-thinking; complete | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 22 | BAGEL-Zebra-CoT | 8.00% | non-thinking; complete | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 61.9% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 44.1% | thinking; complete | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GPT-5 | 43.5% | thinking; complete | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 40.9% | thinking; complete | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | GLM-4.5V | 35.6% | thinking; complete | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 25% | thinking; complete | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 21.2% | non-thinking; complete | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | | 21.1% | non-thinking; complete | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | GPT-4.1 | 19% | non-thinking; complete | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 17.1% | thinking; complete | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 16.7% | non-thinking; complete | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 15.8% | non-thinking; complete | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 15.4% | non-thinking; complete | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | GPT-4.1 mini | 14.6% | non-thinking; complete | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 11.7% | non-thinking; complete | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 8.90% | non-thinking; complete | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | | 8.30% | non-thinking; complete | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
Number one over time 2 models have held number one with claims included since its release in October 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official MathCanvas-Bench leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official MathCanvas-Bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Labs headline it less often now, last in February 2026
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 2026 | 61.9 | MathCanvas |
One system card reports it
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 61.9 | MathCanvas, complete accuracy (Table 8) | Capabilities |
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%