Benchmark Almanac

Progress-Bench

ProgressLM-3B-RL 17.5 tops its leaderboard GPT-5 mini 20.9 leads the models we track
Not in model cards

Vision-language models estimate how far a task has progressed from partial observations, such as frames of a robot or human doing a job. The benchmark varies how the demonstration is shown and the camera viewpoint, and it includes cases with no valid answer.

The paper tests 14 VLMs. The same repository holds the ProgressLM-3B model and its 45K training set, so the stars (about 141) are shared. 12 Hugging Face upvotes. The scoring rule should be checked before importing scores.

Made by
ProgressLM team
Released
January 2026
Kind
Spatial reasoning and counting
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5 #70 on the capability index
Last model added
August 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Estimating task progress requires reasoning over long-horizon dynamics rather than recognizing static visual content. While modern Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel at describing what is visible, it remains unclear whether they can infer how far a task has progressed from partial observations. To this end, we introduce Progress-Bench, a benchmark for systematically evaluating progress reasoning in VLMs. Beyond benchmarking, we further explore a human-inspired two-stage progress reasoning paradigm through both training-free prompting and training-based approach based on curated dataset ProgressLM-45K. Experiments on 14 VLMs show that most models are not yet ready for task progress estimation, exhibiting sensitivity to demonstration modality and viewpoint changes, as well as poor handling of unanswerable cases. While training-free prompting that enforces structured progress reasoning yields limited and model-dependent gains, the training-based ProgressLM-3B achieves consistent improvements even at a small model scale, despite being trained on a task set fully disjoint from the evaluation tasks. Further analyses reveal characteristic error patterns and clarify when and why progress reasoning succeeds or fails. Website: https://progresslm.github.io/ProgressLM/

Abstract of PROGRESSLM: Towards Progress Reasoning in Vision-Language Models (arXiv:2601.15224, CC0)
15
Entries on its own leaderboard, 9 models we track

ProgressLM-3B-RL tops the leaderboard with 17.5

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 best model we track is GPT-5 mini, at 20.9.

The newest model with a score here came out in August 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 ProgressLM-3B-RL direct prediction 17.5
  2. 2 GPT-5 mini direct prediction 20.9
  3. 3 GPT-5 direct prediction 21.3
  4. 4 Qwen3-VL-32B direct prediction 22.6
  5. 5 ProgressLM-3B-SFT direct prediction 24.0
  6. 6 Qwen3-VL-8B direct prediction 29.4
  7. 7 InternVL3.5-38B direct prediction 30.8
  8. 8 Qwen2.5-VL-72B direct prediction 32.9
  9. 9 Qwen3-VL-4B direct prediction 33.4
  10. 10 Qwen2.5-VL-7B direct prediction 36.5
  11. 11 Qwen2.5-VL-3B direct prediction 39.0
  12. 12 InternVL3.5-4B direct prediction 40.4
  13. 13 Qwen2.5-VL-32B direct prediction 40.8
  14. 14 InternVL3.5-14B direct prediction 52.3
  15. 15 Qwen3-VL-2B direct prediction 61.9

Source: Official Progress-Bench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 ProgressLM-3B-RL 17.5 direct prediction Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5 mini 20.9 direct prediction Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5 21.3 direct prediction Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Qwen3-VL-32B 22.6 direct prediction Official leaderboard
5 ProgressLM-3B-SFT 24.0 direct prediction Official leaderboard
6 Qwen3-VL-8B 29.4 direct prediction Official leaderboard
7 InternVL3.5-38B 30.8 direct prediction Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 32.9 direct prediction Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Qwen3-VL-4B 33.4 direct prediction Official leaderboard
10 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 36.5 direct prediction Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Qwen2.5-VL-3B 39.0 direct prediction Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
12 InternVL3.5-4B 40.4 direct prediction Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 40.8 direct prediction Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
14 InternVL3.5-14B 52.3 direct prediction Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen3-VL-2B 61.9 direct prediction Official leaderboard

Number one over time

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

OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jan 2026
GPT-5 mini 20.9

Source: Official Progress-Bench 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
20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 2025 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 2025

Source: Official Progress-Bench 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%