MME-CoT
Models reason step by step on image questions in math, science, OCR, logic, space-time and general scenes. A judge scores reasoning quality, robustness and efficiency.
Part of the MME family with MME, MME-RealWorld and Video-MME. Reports often give the CoT quality F1.
In the authors’ words
Answering questions with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has significantly enhanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet its impact on Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) still lacks a systematic assessment and in-depth investigation. In this paper, we introduce MME-CoT, a specialized benchmark evaluating the CoT reasoning performance of LMMs, spanning six domains: math, science, OCR, logic, space-time, and general scenes. As the first comprehensive study in this area, we propose a thorough evaluation suite incorporating three novel metrics that assess the reasoning quality, robustness, and efficiency at a fine-grained level. Leveraging curated high-quality data and a unique evaluation strategy, we conduct an in-depth analysis of state-of-the-art LMMs, uncovering several key insights: 1) Models with reflection mechanism demonstrate a superior CoT quality, with Kimi k1.5 outperforming GPT-4o and demonstrating the highest quality results; 2) CoT prompting often degrades LMM performance on perception-heavy tasks, suggesting a potentially harmful overthinking behavior; and 3) Although the CoT quality is high, LMMs with reflection exhibit significant inefficiency in both normal response and self-correction phases. We hope MME-CoT serves as a foundation for advancing multimodal reasoning in LMMs. Project Page: https://mmecot.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
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
Kimi k1.5 leads with 64.2% among models released by Jan 2025
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 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 Jan 2025, and nobody has tested 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 Kimi k1.5 64.2%
- 2 JT-VL-Chat 64.1%
- 3 GPT-4o Aug 2024 64%
- 4
QVQ-72B-Preview 62%
- 5 Virgo-72B 60.8%
- 6 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct 56.2%
- 7
InternVL2.5-78B-MPO 52.7%
- 8
InternVL2.5-8B-MPO 43%
- 9 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct 42.1%
- 10
InternVL2.5-8B 41.1%
- 11 MiniCPM-V-2_6 39.8%
- 12 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 36.3%
- 13 LLaVA-CoT 34.9%
- 14
LLaVA-OneVision 7B 30.9%
- 15 Mulberry 27.4%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kimi k1.5 | 64.2% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | JT-VL-Chat | 64.1% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 64% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 62% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Virgo-72B | 60.8% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct | 56.2% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 52.7% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 43% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct | 42.1% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 41.1% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | MiniCPM-V-2_6 | 39.8% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | LLaVA-OneVision 72B | 36.3% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | LLaVA-CoT | 34.9% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 30.9% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | Mulberry | 27.4% | Feb 2025 | 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%