MM-HELIX
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.
- Made by
- MM-HELIX team (Zhao et al.)
- 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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 84.5 GPT-5
- 75.2 o4-mini
- 67.3 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified)
- 66.9
Seed1.5-VL
- 50.4 Intern-S1-241B-A28B
- 43.3 GPT-4.1
- 28.9 Kimi-VL-16B-A3B-Thinking-2506
- 27.0 GLM-4.5V
- 24.9 MM-HELIX-7B-Thinking
- 23.7 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking
- 21.8 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified)
- 20.6
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
- 20.1
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 18.6
InternVL3-78B
- 17.7
QVQ-72B-Preview
- 16.7
InternVL3-38B
- 16.6
Gemma 3 27B
- 15.2 Llama-4-Scout-109B-A17B-16E
- 13.0
MiniCPM-V 4.5
- 12.0
Ovis2-34B
- 8.10
InternVL3-8B
- 8.00
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 6.70
Ovis2-8B
- 1 GPT-5 Text; thinking 84.5%
- 2 o4-mini Text; thinking 75.2%
- 3 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) Text; thinking 67.3%
- 4
Seed1.5-VL Text; thinking 66.9%
- 5 Intern-S1-241B-A28B Text; thinking 50.4%
- 6 GPT-4.1 Text; non-thinking 43.3%
- 7 Kimi-VL-16B-A3B-Thinking-2506 Text; thinking 28.9%
- 8 GLM-4.5V Text; thinking 27%
- 9 MM-HELIX-7B-Thinking Image; thinking 24.9%
- 10 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking Text; thinking 23.7%
- 11 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) Text; non-thinking 21.8%
- 12
Qwen2.5-VL-32B Text; non-thinking 20.6%
- 13
Qwen2.5-VL-72B Text; non-thinking 20.1%
- 14
InternVL3-78B Text; non-thinking 18.6%
- 15
QVQ-72B-Preview Text; thinking 17.7%
- 16
InternVL3-38B Text; non-thinking 16.7%
- 17
Gemma 3 27B Text; non-thinking 16.6%
- 18 Llama-4-Scout-109B-A17B-16E Text; non-thinking 15.2%
- 19
MiniCPM-V 4.5 Text; thinking 13%
- 20
Ovis2-34B Text; non-thinking 12%
- 21
InternVL3-8B Text; non-thinking 8.10%
- 22
Qwen2.5-VL-7B Text; non-thinking 8.00%
- 23
Ovis2-8B Text; non-thinking 6.70%
Source: Official MM-HELIX leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | | 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 | | 20.6% | Text; non-thinking | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 20.1% | Text; non-thinking | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 18.6% | Text; non-thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 17.7% | Text; thinking | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 16.7% | Text; non-thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | | 16.6% | Text; non-thinking | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | Llama-4-Scout-109B-A17B-16E | 15.2% | Text; non-thinking | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 13% | Text; thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | | 12% | Text; non-thinking | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | | 8.10% | Text; non-thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 22 | | 8.00% | Text; non-thinking | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | | 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.
Source: Official MM-HELIX leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5 | Text; thinking | 84.5% | |||
| o4-mini | Text; thinking | 75.2% | |||
| | Text; thinking | 66.9% | |||
| GPT-5 | Image; thinking | 58.1% | |||
| | 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% | |||
| | Text; non-thinking | 20.6% | |||
| | Text; non-thinking | 20.1% | |||
| GLM-4.5V | Image; thinking | 19.5% | |||
| | Text; non-thinking | 18.6% | |||
| | Text; thinking | 17.7% | |||
| | Text; non-thinking | 16.7% | |||
| | Text; non-thinking | 16.6% | |||
| GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking | Image; thinking | 16.3% | |||
| | Image; non-thinking | 13.9% | |||
| | Text; thinking | 13% | |||
| | Image; non-thinking | 12.3% | |||
| | Text; non-thinking | 12% | |||
| | Image; thinking | 11.1% | |||
| | Image; thinking | 10.4% | |||
| | Image; non-thinking | 9.90% | |||
| | Image; non-thinking | 9.70% | |||
| | Text; non-thinking | 8.10% | |||
| | Text; non-thinking | 8.00% | |||
| | Image; non-thinking | 7.20% | |||
| | Image; non-thinking | 6.90% | |||
| | Text; non-thinking | 6.70% | |||
| | Image; non-thinking | 6.30% | |||
| | Image; non-thinking | 4.90% | |||
| | 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.
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.
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
- 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%