- MMStar 63.3
- MME (normalized) 73.1
- RealWorldQA 73.1
- SimpleVQA 35.4
- SEED-Bench (image) 77.7
- MMBench (dev EN v1.1) 81
- CountBenchQA 87.3
- MMMB 83
- MM-IFEval 60.6
- LogicVista 37.4
- MathVista (mini) 68.5
- MMMU-Pro 30.5
- MMMU (val) 48.4
- ChartQA (test) 81.3
- DocVQA (val) 91.1
- InfographicVQA (val) 70.2
- OCRBench v1 84.2
- OCRBench v2 (En) 47.5
- TextVQA (val) 84.3
- RefCOCO-avg 87.9
- BLINK 61.5
- MuirBench 58.3
- HallusionBench 47.2
- POPE 88.7
- Mean of ScreenSpot-v2 Desktop 78.7 / Mobile 81.2 / Web 82.2 80.7
- IFEval 82.3
- IFBench 25.8
- Multi-IF 59.4
- ToolSandbox 59.5
- BFCL V4 32.5
LFM2.5-VL-3B
LFM2.5-VL-3B places in the top three on POPE.
LFM2.5-VL-3B
Open weights Small
- MMMU-Pro 30.5% #88 /90
- IFBench 25.8% #77 /80
- BFCL V4 32.5% #29 /30
Where it ranks
Its best score on each benchmark, and where that ranks among every model with a score there. We rank each model once, at its best setting.
Knowledge and language
| Benchmark | Score | Rank | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| POPE | 88.7% | #2 of 7 | Lab model card | |
| MMMB | 83% | #1 of 2 | Lab model card | |
| MM-IFEval | 60.6% | #2 of 3 | Lab model card | |
| IFEval | 82.3% | #97 of 135 | Lab model card | |
| Multi-IF | 59.4% | #23 of 28 | Lab model card | |
| IFBench | 25.8% | #77 of 80 | Lab model card | |
| SimpleVQA | 35.4% | #29 of 30 | Lab model card | |
| HallusionBench | 47.2% | #30 of 31 | Lab model card |
Agents and tools
| Benchmark | Score | Rank | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ScreenSpot-v2 | 80.7% | #13 of 14 | Lab model card | |
| BFCL V4 | 32.5% | #29 of 30 | Lab model card | |
| ToolSandbox | 59.5% | #5 of 5 | Lab model card |
Vision, audio and robotics
| Benchmark | Score | Rank | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TextVQA | 84.3% | #4 of 17 | Lab model card | |
| SEED-Bench | 77.7% | #1 of 3 | Lab model card | |
| BLINK | 61.5% | #18 of 29 | Lab model card | |
| RefCOCO / RefCOCO+ / RefCOCOg | 87.9% | #20 of 29 | Lab model card | |
| RealWorldQA | 73.1% | #27 of 38 | Lab model card | |
| MathVista | 68.5% | #50 of 70 | Lab model card | |
| InfographicVQA | 70.2% | #19 of 26 | Lab model card | |
| DocVQA | 91.1% | #27 of 36 | Lab model card | |
| ChartQA | 81.3% | #29 of 37 | Lab model card | |
| CountBench | 87.3% | #22 of 28 | Lab model card | |
| MuirBench | 58.3% | #10 of 12 | Lab model card | |
| OCRBench | 84.2% | #29 of 34 | Lab model card | |
| MMBench-EN v1.1 | 81% | #21 of 23 | Lab model card | |
| MMStar | 63.3% | #33 of 36 | Lab model card | |
| LogicVista | 37.4% | #13 of 14 | Lab model card | |
| MMMU | 48.4% | #98 of 103 | Lab model card | |
| MMMU-Pro | 30.5% | #88 of 90 | Lab model card | |
| OCRBench v2 | 42.6% | #14 of 14 | Official leaderboard |
Its lab's numbers put it at 120.8, number 340 of 404
The Self-Reported Index fits one score to the 24 capability results Liquid AI reported for this model, on the scale of the Epoch Capabilities Index. Labs choose which benchmarks to show and how to run them, so read it as the lab's claim, not an independent measurement. The 90% interval runs from 118.1 to 123.6. How we compute it.
- DocVQA 91.1
- RefCOCO / RefCOCO+ / RefCOCOg 87.9
- CountBench 87.3
- TextVQA 84.3
- OCRBench 84.2
- IFEval 82.3
- ChartQA 81.3
- MMBench-EN v1.1 81
- ScreenSpot-v2 80.7
- RealWorldQA 73.1
- InfographicVQA 70.2
- MathVista 68.5
- MMStar 63.3
- BLINK 61.5
- Multi-IF 59.4
- MuirBench 58.3
- MMMU 48.4
- OCRBench v2 47.5
- HallusionBench 47.2
- LogicVista 37.4
- SimpleVQA 35.4
- BFCL V4 32.5
- MMMU-Pro 30.5
- IFBench 25.8
Its lab's number next to a leaderboard
Where the benchmark's own leaderboard, or Epoch AI's run, also has this model. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every pair.
| Benchmark | Lab says | Board says | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCRBench v2 | 47.5% OCRBench v2 (En) | 42.6% Leaderboard | +4.9 pts |
Its launch post
The benchmarks the lab chose to headline, with the scores it gave.