Benchmark Almanac

CiteVQA

Gemini 3.1 Pro 76% leads since May 2026
Not in model cards

Multimodal models answer questions about long PDFs and must cite the page region that supports each answer with a bounding box. The set has 1,897 questions over 711 documents in seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. Strict Attributed Accuracy counts an answer only when both the answer and the cited region are correct.

An automated masking pipeline finds the evidence regions and experts then review them. The paper audits 20 MLLMs. 47 Hugging Face upvotes and about 67 GitHub stars.

Released
May 2026
Kind
Documents, charts and text in images
Level
University
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.4 #27 on the capability index
Last model added
April 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced document understanding, yet current Doc-VQA evaluations score only the final answer and leave the supporting evidence unchecked. This answer-only approach masks a critical failure mode: a model can land on the correct answer while grounding it in the wrong passage—a critical risk in high-stakes domains like law, finance, and medicine, where every conclusion must be traceable to a specific source region. To address this, we introduce CiteVQA, a benchmark that requires models to return element-level bounding-box citations alongside each answer, evaluating both jointly. CiteVQA comprises 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs spanning seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. To ensure fidelity and scalability, the ground-truth citations are generated by an automated pipeline—which identifies crucial evidence via masking ablation and enforces multi-stage quality control. At the core of our evaluation is Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), which credits a prediction only when the answer and the cited region are both correct. Auditing 20 MLLMs reveals a pervasive Attribution Hallucination: models frequently produce the right answer while citing the wrong region. The strongest system (Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview) achieves an SAA of only 76.0, and the strongest open-source MLLM reaches just 22.5. Ultimately, towards trustworthy document intelligence, CiteVQA exposes a reliability gap that answer-only evaluations overlook, providing the instrumentation needed to close it. Our repository is available at https://github.com/opendatalab/CiteVQA.

Abstract of CiteVQA: Benchmarking Evidence Attribution for Trustworthy Document Intelligence (arXiv:2605.12882, CC0)
20
Entries on its own leaderboard, 16 models we track

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 76% among models released by April 2026

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 newest model with a score here came out in April 2026, 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 3.1 Pro 76%
  2. 2 Gemini 3 Flash 65.4%
  3. 3 GPT-5.4 59%
  4. 4 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 47%
  5. 5 Seed2.0 Pro 44.1%
  6. 6 GPT-5.2 33.7%
  7. 7 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 22.5%
  8. 8 Gemma 4 31B IT 20.2%
  9. 9 Kimi K2.5 19.1%
  10. 10 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 18.3%
  11. 11 Qwen 3.6 Plus 17.5%
  12. 12 Qwen3-VL-32B 17.3%
  13. 13 Qwen3.5-27B 17.3%
  14. 14 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 14.8%
  15. 15 GLM-5V-Turbo 12.8%
  16. 16 Qwen3.5-9B 11.1%
  17. 17 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 10.7%
  18. 18 Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B 8.20%
  19. 19 Qwen3-VL-8B 7.50%
  20. 20 Gemma 4 26B A4B 6.20%

Source: Official CiteVQA leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 3.1 Pro 76% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3 Flash 65.4% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5.4 59% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 47% Official leaderboard
5 Seed2.0 Pro 44.1% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.2 33.7% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 22.5% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Gemma 4 31B IT 20.2% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Kimi K2.5 19.1% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 18.3% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Qwen 3.6 Plus 17.5% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen3-VL-32B 17.3% Official leaderboard
13 Qwen3.5-27B 17.3% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 14.8% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
15 GLM-5V-Turbo 12.8% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Qwen3.5-9B 11.1% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 10.7% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
18 Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B 8.20% Official leaderboard
19 Qwen3-VL-8B 7.50% Official leaderboard
20 Gemma 4 26B A4B 6.20% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard

Number one over time

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

Google DeepMind
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2026

Source: Official CiteVQA 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% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini 3 Flash GPT-5.2 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini 3 Flash

Source: Official CiteVQA 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%