MME-Reasoning
Multimodal models answer logic questions grouped into inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning.
83 upvotes on Hugging Face papers.
- Made by
- MME team (Alpha-Innovator)
- 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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 60.2 Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified]
- 59.9
Seed1.5-VL
- 57.5 o4-mini
- 42.8
Skywork-R1V3-38B
- 36.1 Claude Sonnet 4
- 35.8 VL-Rethinker-72B
- 35.2
QVQ-72B-Preview
- 34.1
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 34.1 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 33.2
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
- 32.1
InternVL3-78B
- 31.8 Virgo-72B
- 30.6 MM-Eureka-Qwen-32B
- 30.2 GPT-4o [snapshot unspecified]
- 29.3 VL-Rethinker-7B
- 28.4
InternVL3-38B
- 28.2 MM-Eureka-Qwen-7B
- 27.5 Qwen2-VL-72B
- 27.4 LMM-R1-MGT-PerceReason
- 26.8
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 1 Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified] thinking 60.2%
- 2
Seed1.5-VL thinking 59.9%
- 3 o4-mini 57.5%
- 4
Skywork-R1V3-38B 42.8%
- 5 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking 36.1%
- 6 VL-Rethinker-72B 35.8%
- 7
QVQ-72B-Preview 35.2%
- 8
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 34.1%
- 9 Claude 3.7 Sonnet thinking 34.1%
- 10
Qwen2.5-VL-32B 33.2%
- 11
InternVL3-78B 32.1%
- 12 Virgo-72B 31.8%
- 13 MM-Eureka-Qwen-32B 30.6%
- 14 GPT-4o [snapshot unspecified] 30.2%
- 15 VL-Rethinker-7B 29.3%
- 16
InternVL3-38B 28.4%
- 17 MM-Eureka-Qwen-7B 28.2%
- 18 Qwen2-VL-72B 27.5%
- 19 LMM-R1-MGT-PerceReason 27.4%
- 20
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 26.8%
Source: Official MME-Reasoning leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified] | 60.2% | thinking | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | | 59.9% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | o4-mini | 57.5% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 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 | | 35.2% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 34.1% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 34.1% | thinking | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 33.2% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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.
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.
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
- 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%