SpatialViz-Bench
Models answer 1,180 generated multiple choice puzzles on mental rotation, mental folding, visual penetration, and mental animation. Scoring is accuracy.
A program generates the questions, which limits training contamination. Humans score about 82%.
In the authors’ words
Humans can imagine and manipulate visual images mentally, a capability known as spatial visualization. While many multi-modal benchmarks assess reasoning on visible visual information, the ability to infer unseen relationships through spatial visualization remains insufficiently evaluated as a spatial skill. This reliance on publicly sourced problems from IQ tests or math competitions risks data contamination and compromises assessment reliability. To this end, we introduce SpatialViz-Bench, a comprehensive multi-modal benchmark for spatial visualization with 12 tasks across 4 sub-abilities, comprising 1,180 programmatically generated problems, a scalable framework that allows for expansion to ensure fair and continuously reliable evaluations. Our evaluation of 27 Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) reveals wide performance variations, demonstrates the benchmark's strong discriminative power, and uncovers counter-intuitive findings: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting paradoxically degrades accuracy on open-source models. Through statistical and qualitative analysis of error types, SpatialViz-Bench demonstrates that state-of-the-art MLLMs exhibit deficiencies in spatial visualization tasks, thereby addressing a significant lacuna in the field. The benchmark data and evaluation code are publicly available.
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Multiple choice
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads with 44.7% among models released by Jun 2025
Best score per model in Epoch AI’s data. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
The newest model with a score here came out in Jun 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
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 44.7%
- 2 o1 unknown thinking 41.4%
- 3
Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 36.9%
- 4
Llama 4 Scout 34.2%
- 5 Claude 3.7 Sonnet unknown thinking 33.9%
- 6
Qwen2.5-72B 33.3%
- 7 Qwen-VL-Max 32%
- 8
Llama 4 Maverick 31.8%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 44.7% | Jun 2025 | Epoch AI | |
| 2 | o1 | 41.4% | unknown thinking | Dec 2024 | Epoch AI |
| 3 | | 36.9% | Jun 2025 | Epoch AI | |
| 4 | | 34.2% | Apr 2025 | Epoch AI | |
| 5 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 33.9% | unknown thinking | Feb 2025 | Epoch AI |
| 6 | | 33.3% | Sep 2024 | Epoch AI | |
| 7 | Qwen-VL-Max | 32% | Jan 2024 | Epoch AI | |
| 8 | | 31.8% | Apr 2025 | Epoch AI |
Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.
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.
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.
One system card reports it
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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 Jan 2026 | | 45.5 | SpatialViz-Bench, SeRe (Tables 1 and 3). PaCoRe 52.03 | Capabilities |
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%