Benchmark Almanac

MM-HELIX

GPT-5 84.5% leads since October 2025
Not in model cards

Multimodal models solve 1,260 items from 42 synthetic tasks that need long reflective reasoning with backtracking.

110 upvotes on Hugging Face papers. Released with a training method.

Released
October 2025
Kind
Visual math and diagrams
Level
University
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5 #70 on the capability index
Last model added
August 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

While current Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated proficiency in reasoning tasks such as mathematics and logic, their capacity for long-chain reflective reasoning, a prerequisite for solving complex real-world problems, remains largely underexplored. In this work, we first conduct an extensive empirical investigation to evaluate this capability. Leveraging a carefully designed data synthesis engine, we construct MM-HELIX, a multimodal benchmark consisting 1,260 samples of 42 challenging synthetic tasks that require iterative thinking and backtracking. Empirical results on this benchmark reveal that existing MLLMs exhibit significant performance deficits in long-chain reflective reasoning. To address this limitation, we generate post-training data and further explore learning paradigms for exploiting such data. We first develop the Step-Elicited Response Generation pipeline to create MM-HELIX-100K, a large-scale dataset of 100k high-quality, reflective reasoning traces for instruction-tuning stage. Given that standard Reinforcement Learning fails on complex tasks due to sparse reward signals and catastrophic forgetting after Supervised Fine-Tuning, we propose Adaptive Hybrid Policy Optimization (AHPO), a novel training strategy that dynamically unifies offline supervision and online optimization into a single stage. This strategy enables the model to learn from expert data when rewards are sparse and conduct independent exploration once proficient. When applied to the Qwen2.5-VL-7B baseline, our method achieves a +18.6% accuracy improvement on MM-HELIX benchmark and demonstrates strong generalization with a +5.7% average performance gain on general mathematic and logic tasks. Our work demonstrate that reflective reasoning in MLLMs can be effectively learned and generalized, paving the way for developing more capable MLLMs.

Abstract of MM-HELIX: Boosting Multimodal Long-Chain Reflective Reasoning with Holistic Platform and Adaptive Hybrid Policy Optimization (arXiv:2510.08540, CC0)
23
Entries on its own leaderboard, 17 models we track

GPT-5 leads with 84.5% among models released by August 2025

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 August 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 GPT-5 Text; thinking 84.5%
  2. 2 o4-mini Text; thinking 75.2%
  3. 3 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) Text; thinking 67.3%
  4. 4 Seed1.5-VL Text; thinking 66.9%
  5. 5 Intern-S1-241B-A28B Text; thinking 50.4%
  6. 6 GPT-4.1 Text; non-thinking 43.3%
  7. 7 Kimi-VL-16B-A3B-Thinking-2506 Text; thinking 28.9%
  8. 8 GLM-4.5V Text; thinking 27%
  9. 9 MM-HELIX-7B-Thinking Image; thinking 24.9%
  10. 10 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking Text; thinking 23.7%
  11. 11 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) Text; non-thinking 21.8%
  12. 12 Qwen2.5-VL-32B Text; non-thinking 20.6%
  13. 13 Qwen2.5-VL-72B Text; non-thinking 20.1%
  14. 14 InternVL3-78B Text; non-thinking 18.6%
  15. 15 QVQ-72B-Preview Text; thinking 17.7%
  16. 16 InternVL3-38B Text; non-thinking 16.7%
  17. 17 Gemma 3 27B Text; non-thinking 16.6%
  18. 18 Llama-4-Scout-109B-A17B-16E Text; non-thinking 15.2%
  19. 19 MiniCPM-V 4.5 Text; thinking 13%
  20. 20 Ovis2-34B Text; non-thinking 12%
  21. 21 InternVL3-8B Text; non-thinking 8.10%
  22. 22 Qwen2.5-VL-7B Text; non-thinking 8.00%
  23. 23 Ovis2-8B Text; non-thinking 6.70%

Source: Official MM-HELIX leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5 84.5% Text; thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
2 o4-mini 75.2% Text; thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) 67.3% Text; thinking Official leaderboard
4 Seed1.5-VL 66.9% Text; thinking May 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Intern-S1-241B-A28B 50.4% Text; thinking Official leaderboard
6 GPT-4.1 43.3% Text; non-thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Kimi-VL-16B-A3B-Thinking-2506 28.9% Text; thinking Official leaderboard
8 GLM-4.5V 27% Text; thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
9 MM-HELIX-7B-Thinking 24.9% Image; thinking Official leaderboard
10 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 23.7% Text; thinking Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
11 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 21.8% Text; non-thinking Official leaderboard
12 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 20.6% Text; non-thinking Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 20.1% Text; non-thinking Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
14 InternVL3-78B 18.6% Text; non-thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
15 QVQ-72B-Preview 17.7% Text; thinking Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
16 InternVL3-38B 16.7% Text; non-thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Gemma 3 27B 16.6% Text; non-thinking Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Llama-4-Scout-109B-A17B-16E 15.2% Text; non-thinking Official leaderboard
19 MiniCPM-V 4.5 13% Text; thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
20 Ovis2-34B 12% Text; non-thinking Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
21 InternVL3-8B 8.10% Text; non-thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
22 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 8.00% Text; non-thinking Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
23 Ovis2-8B 6.70% Text; non-thinking Feb 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.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
GPT-5
Image; thin… Text; think…
84.5%
o4-mini
Image; thin… Text; think…
75.2%
Seed1.5-VL
Image; thin… Text; think…
66.9%
GPT-4.1
Image; non-… Text; non-t…
43.3%
GLM-4.5V
Image; thin… Text; think…
27%
GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking
Image; thin… Text; think…
23.7%
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
Image; non-… Text; non-t…
20.6%
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
Image; non-…
20.1%
InternVL3-78B
Image; non-… Text; non-t…
18.6%
QVQ-72B-Preview
Image; thin…
17.7%
InternVL3-38B
Image; non-… Text; non-t…
16.7%
Gemma 3 27B
Image; non-… Text; non-t…
16.6%

Source: Official MM-HELIX leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-5 Text; thinking 84.5%
o4-mini Text; thinking 75.2%
Seed1.5-VL Text; thinking 66.9%
GPT-5 Image; thinking 58.1%
Seed1.5-VL Image; thinking 48.3%
o4-mini Image; thinking 44.7%
GPT-4.1 Text; non-thinking 43.3%
GLM-4.5V Text; thinking 27%
GPT-4.1 Image; non-thinking 25.1%
GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking Text; thinking 23.7%
Qwen2.5-VL-32B Text; non-thinking 20.6%
Qwen2.5-VL-72B Text; non-thinking 20.1%
GLM-4.5V Image; thinking 19.5%
InternVL3-78B Text; non-thinking 18.6%
QVQ-72B-Preview Text; thinking 17.7%
InternVL3-38B Text; non-thinking 16.7%
Gemma 3 27B Text; non-thinking 16.6%
GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking Image; thinking 16.3%
Qwen2.5-VL-72B Image; non-thinking 13.9%
MiniCPM-V 4.5 Text; thinking 13%
Qwen2.5-VL-32B Image; non-thinking 12.3%
Ovis2-34B Text; non-thinking 12%
QVQ-72B-Preview Image; thinking 11.1%
MiniCPM-V 4.5 Image; thinking 10.4%
InternVL3-78B Image; non-thinking 9.90%
InternVL3-38B Image; non-thinking 9.70%
InternVL3-8B Text; non-thinking 8.10%
Qwen2.5-VL-7B Text; non-thinking 8.00%
Ovis2-34B Image; non-thinking 7.20%
Gemma 3 27B Image; non-thinking 6.90%
Ovis2-8B Text; non-thinking 6.70%
Qwen2.5-VL-7B Image; non-thinking 6.30%
InternVL3-8B Image; non-thinking 4.90%
Ovis2-8B Image; non-thinking 3.80%

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since Oct 2025
GPT-5 84.5%

Source: Official MM-HELIX leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5 o4-mini GPT-4.1 Qwen2.5-VL-32B QVQ-72B-Preview 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5 o4-mini

Source: Official MM-HELIX 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

All 281 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%