Benchmark Almanac

MME-Reasoning

Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified] 60.2% tops its leaderboard Seed1.5-VL 59.9% leads the models we track
Not in model cards

Multimodal models answer logic questions grouped into inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning.

83 upvotes on Hugging Face papers.

Released
May 2025
Kind
Visual math and diagrams
Level
University
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
o4-mini #94 on the capability index
Last model added
July 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Logical reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence and an essential capability for multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Despite the significant advancement in multimodal reasoning, existing benchmarks fail to comprehensively evaluate their reasoning abilities due to the lack of explicit categorization for logical reasoning types and an unclear understanding of reasoning. To address these issues, we introduce MME-Reasoning, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning ability of MLLMs, which covers all three types of reasoning (i.e., inductive, deductive, and abductive) in its questions. We carefully curate the data to ensure that each question effectively evaluates reasoning ability rather than perceptual skills or knowledge breadth, and extend the evaluation protocols to cover the evaluation of diverse questions. Our evaluation reveals substantial limitations of state-of-the-art MLLMs when subjected to holistic assessments of logical reasoning capabilities. Even the most advanced MLLMs show limited performance in comprehensive logical reasoning, with notable performance imbalances across reasoning types. In addition, we conducted an in-depth analysis of approaches such as “thinking mode” and Rule-based RL, which are commonly believed to enhance reasoning abilities. These findings highlight the critical limitations and performance imbalances of current MLLMs in diverse logical reasoning scenarios, providing comprehensive and systematic insights into the understanding and evaluation of reasoning capabilities.

Abstract of MME-Reasoning: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Logical Reasoning in MLLMs (arXiv:2505.21327, CC0)
20
Entries on its own leaderboard, 11 models we track

Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified] tops the leaderboard with 60.2%

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 Seed1.5-VL, at 59.9%.

The newest model with a score here came out in July 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 Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified] thinking 60.2%
  2. 2 Seed1.5-VL thinking 59.9%
  3. 3 o4-mini 57.5%
  4. 4 Skywork-R1V3-38B 42.8%
  5. 5 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking 36.1%
  6. 6 VL-Rethinker-72B 35.8%
  7. 7 QVQ-72B-Preview 35.2%
  8. 8 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 34.1%
  9. 9 Claude 3.7 Sonnet thinking 34.1%
  10. 10 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 33.2%
  11. 11 InternVL3-78B 32.1%
  12. 12 Virgo-72B 31.8%
  13. 13 MM-Eureka-Qwen-32B 30.6%
  14. 14 GPT-4o [snapshot unspecified] 30.2%
  15. 15 VL-Rethinker-7B 29.3%
  16. 16 InternVL3-38B 28.4%
  17. 17 MM-Eureka-Qwen-7B 28.2%
  18. 18 Qwen2-VL-72B 27.5%
  19. 19 LMM-R1-MGT-PerceReason 27.4%
  20. 20 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 26.8%

Source: Official MME-Reasoning leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified] 60.2% thinking Official leaderboard
2 Seed1.5-VL 59.9% thinking May 2025 Official leaderboard
3 o4-mini 57.5% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Skywork-R1V3-38B 42.8% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Sonnet 4 36.1% thinking May 2025 Official leaderboard
6 VL-Rethinker-72B 35.8% Official leaderboard
7 QVQ-72B-Preview 35.2% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 34.1% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 34.1% thinking Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 33.2% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
11 InternVL3-78B 32.1% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Virgo-72B 31.8% Official leaderboard
13 MM-Eureka-Qwen-32B 30.6% Official leaderboard
14 GPT-4o [snapshot unspecified] 30.2% Official leaderboard
15 VL-Rethinker-7B 29.3% Official leaderboard
16 InternVL3-38B 28.4% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
17 MM-Eureka-Qwen-7B 28.2% Official leaderboard
18 Qwen2-VL-72B 27.5% Official leaderboard
19 LMM-R1-MGT-PerceReason 27.4% Official leaderboard
20 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 26.8% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2025

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

OpenAI ByteDance Seed
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jul 2025
Seed1.5-VL 59.9%

Source: Official MME-Reasoning 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%) Seed1.5-VL QVQ-72B-Preview 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed1.5-VL QVQ-72B-Preview

Source: Official MME-Reasoning 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%