Humanity's Sixth Sense
Models answer open-ended questions about what an image or short video implies but does not show, such as hidden objects, causes and intentions. An LLM judge checks each answer against a human-written rubric.
522 tasks on 288 images and 234 video clips. A task counts only if every rubric item is met. People score 93.1% and the best of 25 models 53.6%.
In the authors’ words
Humans perceive far more in a scene than what is explicitly depicted: a single glance captures past causes and future trajectories; a quick peek determines if a vehicle can fit between two parked cars; a few seconds of video reveals who holds authority in a room; and a fleeting clip highlights subtle abstract patterns like unwritten rules or hidden labels. This capacity reflects a form of humanity's sixth sense: an intuitive reasoning mechanism that recovers implicit information beyond raw sensory perception. Crucially, this rapid, zero-shot visual intuition underpins everyday navigation and social interaction, making it a vital capability for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) deployed alongside people. Existing visual benchmarks, however, target either deliberate expert-level analysis in academic and mathematical domains or low-level perception, leaving the intuitive reasoning that people perform largely untested. To bridge this gap, we introduce Humanity's Sixth Sense (HSS), a benchmark for intuitive visual reasoning. HSS spans diverse image and video inputs, organizes items under a structured taxonomy, and pairs each with human-written prompts probing the implicit temporal, spatial, social, and abstract structure that people infer at a glance. Frontier MLLMs fall short of human performance: participants reach 93.1% accuracy, while the strongest model, GPT-6-astra, reaches only 53.6% even at maximum reasoning effort. Despite excelling in many complex tasks that require advanced perception and knowledge, current models still struggle significantly on these visual tasks that are intuitive for humans. We further explore agentic setup that apply dynamic visual manipulation to HSS, which narrows but does not close the gap. HSS establishes intuitive visual reasoning as a measurable axis and directs attention to a capability that scaling on current benchmarks has so far left behind.
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
Gemini 4 Argon leads with 55.4%
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
- 55.4
Gemini 4 Argon
- 53.6 GPT-6 Astra
- 46.6 GPT-6.1 Sol
- 44.6 Claude Opus 5.5
- 43.7
Muse Wonder
- 41.6
Gemini 3.8 Flash
- 40.8 Claude Fable 5.1
- 39.8
Gemini 3.7 Flash
- 37.4
Muse Spark 1.3
- 34.5 Claude Fable 5
- 33.0
Qwen 3.8 Max
- 32.6
Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 31.9
Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 31.2 GPT-6 Sol
- 30.9
Qwen3.8 Flash
- 30.5 Claude Opus 5
- 30.1
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
- 30.0 GPT-5.6 Sol
- 29.6
Muse Spark Open
- 26.8 GLM-5.3-Flash
- 25.5 Kimi K3
- 25.4 MiMo-V2.6 Flash
- 25.2 MiMo-V2.6 Pro
- 24.8 Claude Sonnet 5
- 24.5
Muse Spark 1.2
- 23.5 Claude Opus 4.8
- 22.7 GPT-5.6 Terra
- 21.6 GPT-5.6 Luna
- 21.0 GPT-6 Luna
- 1
Gemini 4 Argon high 55.4%
- 2 GPT-6 Astra max 53.6%
- 3 GPT-6.1 Sol max 46.6%
- 4 Claude Opus 5.5 xhigh 44.6%
- 5
Muse Wonder max 43.7%
- 6
Gemini 3.8 Flash high 41.6%
- 7 Claude Fable 5.1 40.8%
- 8
Gemini 3.7 Flash high 39.8%
- 9
Muse Spark 1.3 max 37.4%
- 10 Claude Fable 5 max 34.5%
- 11
Qwen 3.8 Max max 33%
- 12
Gemini 3.5 Flash high 32.6%
- 13
Gemini 3.6 Flash high 31.9%
- 14 GPT-6 Sol max 31.2%
- 15
Qwen3.8 Flash max 30.9%
- 16 Claude Opus 5 max 30.5%
- 17
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 max 30.1%
- 18 GPT-5.6 Sol max 30%
- 19
Muse Spark Open max 29.6%
- 20 GLM-5.3-Flash max 26.8%
- 21 Kimi K3 max 25.5%
- 22 MiMo-V2.6 Flash high 25.4%
- 23 MiMo-V2.6 Pro high 25.2%
- 24 Claude Sonnet 5 max 24.8%
- 25
Muse Spark 1.2 xhigh 24.5%
- 26 Claude Opus 4.8 max 23.5%
- 27 GPT-5.6 Terra max 22.7%
- 28 GPT-5.6 Luna max 21.6%
- 29 GPT-6 Luna max 21%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 55.4% | high | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-6 Astra | 53.6% | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GPT-6.1 Sol | 46.6% | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 44.6% | xhigh | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 43.7% | max | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | | 41.6% | high | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Claude Fable 5.1 | 40.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 39.8% | high | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 37.4% | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | Claude Fable 5 | 34.5% | max | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 33% | max | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 32.6% | high | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 31.9% | high | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | GPT-6 Sol | 31.2% | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 30.9% | max | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | Claude Opus 5 | 30.5% | max | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | | 30.1% | max | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 30% | max | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | | 29.6% | max | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | GLM-5.3-Flash | 26.8% | max | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | Kimi K3 | 25.5% | max | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 22 | MiMo-V2.6 Flash | 25.4% | high | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | MiMo-V2.6 Pro | 25.2% | high | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 24 | Claude Sonnet 5 | 24.8% | max | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 25 | | 24.5% | xhigh | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 26 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 23.5% | max | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 27 | GPT-5.6 Terra | 22.7% | max | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 28 | GPT-5.6 Luna | 21.6% | max | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 29 | GPT-6 Luna | 21% | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 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. 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%