Benchmark Almanac

CharXiv (DQ)

Seed2.1 Pro 95.5% leads since Jun 2026 Only in system cards

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/

Abstract of CharXiv: Charting Gaps in Realistic Chart Understanding in Multimodal LLMs (arXiv:2406.18521, CC0)
Made by Princeton University (Zirui Wang et al.) Released Jun 2024 Documents, charts and text in images All tasks public Last in a system card Jun 2026 Last model added Jun 2026
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.
7
Models scored in lab cards
7
System cards report it, from 4 labs

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:

  1. 1 Seed2.1 Pro 95.5%
  2. 2 Seed2.0 Pro 93.5%
  3. 3 Seed1.5-VL 92.6%
  4. 4 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 90.5%
  5. 5 Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B-A3B 88.9%
  6. 6 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 87.4%
  7. 7 Amazon Nova Premier 84.6%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.1 Pro 95.5% Jun 2026 Model card
2 Seed2.0 Pro 93.5% Feb 2026 Model card
3 Seed1.5-VL 92.6% May 2025 Model card
4 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 90.5% Nov 2025 Model card
5 Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B-A3B 88.9% Apr 2026 Model card
6 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 87.4% Feb 2025 Model card
7 Amazon Nova Premier 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.

Qwen ByteDance Seed
Lab claims Passed 85% in Feb 2025, by Qwen2.5-VL-72B
Seed2.1 Pro 95.5%

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.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.1 Pro Seed2.0 Pro Seed1.5-VL Qwen2.5-VL-72B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.1 Pro Seed1.5-VL

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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
23 Jun 2026 Seed2.1 Pro model card 95.5 CharXiv-DQ (Table 9) Capabilities
27 Apr 2026 Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B-A3B technical report 88.9 CharXiv (DQ), reasoning on, 81.9 reasoning off (Table 7) Capabilities
14 Feb 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 93.5 CharXiv-DQ (Table 8) Capabilities
26 Nov 2025 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B technical report 90.5 CharXiv(DQ) (Table 2) Capabilities
11 May 2025 Seed1.5-VL technical report 92.6 CharXiv (DQ), thinking (Table 6). Non-thinking 92.6 Capabilities
30 Apr 2025 Amazon Nova Premier technical report 84.6 CharXiv Descriptive, GPT-4o graded, no CoT (Table 1) Capabilities
19 Feb 2025 Qwen2.5-VL-72B technical report 87.4 CharXiv DQ (Table 5) Capabilities

More in Vision

All 234 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%