CharXiv (DQ)
Models answer descriptive questions about charts from arXiv papers, such as titles, axis labels and legend entries. It is the descriptive half of CharXiv.
The almanac record charxiv holds the reasoning questions (RQ). Lab tables often print DQ and RQ side by side.
In the authors’ words
Chart understanding plays a pivotal role when applying Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to real-world tasks such as analyzing scientific papers or financial reports. However, existing datasets often focus on oversimplified and homogeneous charts with template-based questions, leading to an over-optimistic measure of progress. We demonstrate that although open-source models can appear to outperform strong proprietary models on these benchmarks, a simple stress test with slightly different charts or questions can deteriorate performance by up to 34.5%. In this work, we propose CharXiv, a comprehensive evaluation suite involving 2,323 natural, challenging, and diverse charts from arXiv papers. CharXiv includes two types of questions: 1) descriptive questions about examining basic chart elements and 2) reasoning questions that require synthesizing information across complex visual elements in the chart. To ensure quality, all charts and questions are handpicked, curated, and verified by human experts. Our results reveal a substantial, previously underestimated gap between the reasoning skills of the strongest proprietary model (i.e., GPT-4o), which achieves 47.1% accuracy, and the strongest open-source model (i.e., InternVL Chat V1.5), which achieves 29.2%. All models lag far behind human performance of 80.5%, underscoring weaknesses in the chart understanding capabilities of existing MLLMs. We hope CharXiv facilitates future research on MLLM chart understanding by providing a more realistic and faithful measure of progress. Project page and leaderboard: https://charxiv.github.io/
- Level
- University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
Seed2.1 Pro leads with 95.5% among models released by Jun 2026
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
The newest model with a score here came out in Jun 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 1
Seed2.1 Pro 95.5%
- 2
Seed2.0 Pro 93.5%
- 3
Seed1.5-VL 92.6%
- 4
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 90.5%
- 5
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B-A3B 88.9%
- 6
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 87.4%
- 7
Amazon Nova Premier 84.6%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 95.5% | Jun 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 93.5% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 92.6% | May 2025 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 90.5% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 88.9% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 6 | | 87.4% | Feb 2025 | Model card | |
| 7 | | 84.6% | Apr 2025 | Model card |
4 models have held number one since its release in Jun 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
The best score passed 85% in Feb 2025
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
7 system cards report it, from 4 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Jun 2026 | | 95.5 | CharXiv-DQ (Table 9) | Capabilities |
| 27 Apr 2026 | | 88.9 | CharXiv (DQ), reasoning on, 81.9 reasoning off (Table 7) | Capabilities |
| 14 Feb 2026 | | 93.5 | CharXiv-DQ (Table 8) | Capabilities |
| 26 Nov 2025 | | 90.5 | CharXiv(DQ) (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| 11 May 2025 | | 92.6 | CharXiv (DQ), thinking (Table 6). Non-thinking 92.6 | Capabilities |
| 30 Apr 2025 | | 84.6 | CharXiv Descriptive, GPT-4o graded, no CoT (Table 1) | Capabilities |
| 19 Feb 2025 | | 87.4 | CharXiv DQ (Table 5) | Capabilities |
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. Kimi K3.1 Pro 84.1%
- 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%
- 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%
- DocVQA In use Models answer 50,000 questions about 12,000 scanned document images by reading their text and layout. Scoring is ANLS, a string similarity to reference answers.
Seed1.5-VL 96.9%