VisualPuzzles
Models solve visual puzzles that need algorithmic, analogical, deductive, inductive and spatial reasoning but little domain knowledge. Scored by accuracy.
Many puzzles come from translated Chinese civil service exam questions.
In the authors’ words
Current multimodal benchmarks often conflate reasoning with domain-specific knowledge, making it difficult to isolate and evaluate general reasoning abilities in non-expert settings. To address this, we introduce VisualPuzzles, a benchmark that targets visual reasoning while deliberately minimizing reliance on specialized knowledge. VisualPuzzles consists of diverse questions spanning five categories: algorithmic, analogical, deductive, inductive, and spatial reasoning. One major source of our questions is manually translated logical reasoning questions from the Chinese Civil Service Examination. Experiments show that VisualPuzzles requires significantly less intensive domain-specific knowledge and more complex reasoning compared to benchmarks like MMMU, enabling us to better evaluate genuine multimodal reasoning. Evaluations show that state-of-the-art multimodal large language models consistently lag behind human performance on VisualPuzzles, and that strong performance on knowledge-intensive benchmarks does not necessarily translate to success on reasoning-focused, knowledge-light tasks. Additionally, reasoning enhancements such as scaling up inference compute (with "thinking" modes) yield inconsistent gains across models and task types, and we observe no clear correlation between model size and performance. We also found that models exhibit different reasoning and answering patterns on VisualPuzzles compared to benchmarks with heavier emphasis on knowledge. VisualPuzzles offers a clearer lens through which to evaluate reasoning capabilities beyond factual recall and domain knowledge.
- 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
o4-mini leads with 57% among models released by Nov 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 Nov 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
- 57.0 o4-mini
- 54.0 o3
- 52.7
Gemini 3 Pro
- 51.8 o1
- 49.5
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 48.3 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 47.3 Claude Sonnet 4
- 45.0
Gemini 1.5 Pro
- 44.9
Gemini 2.0 Flash
- 44.6
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 42.4 Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- 42.2
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 41.3 GPT-4o
- 37.8
QVQ-72B-Preview
- 34.9 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct
- 34.1
Llama 3.2 90B
- 33.7
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 32.4 Qwen2-VL-72B
- 31.3
Qwen2-VL-2B-Instruct
- 31.2 Pangea-7B
- 31.2
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
- 30.8 LLaVA-OneVision 72B
- 30.2 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct
- 29.8
LLaVA-v1.6-34B
- 29.4
LLaVA-OneVision 7B
- 29.4
Llama 3.2 11B
- 28.9
Cambrian-1-8B
- 27.6
LLaVA-v1.5-13B
- 27.4 LLaVA-1.6-7B
- 27.4
Cambrian-1-13B
- 27.2
LLaVA-OneVision 0.5B
- 26.9 LLaVA-1.5-7B
- 26.6 Qwen-VL
- 25.5 llava-v1.6-vicuna-13b
- 1 o4-mini 57%
- 2 o3 54%
- 3
Gemini 3 Pro 52.7%
- 4 o1 51.8%
- 5
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 49.5%
- 6 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 48.3%
- 7 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking 47.3%
- 8
Gemini 1.5 Pro Sep 2024 45%
- 9
Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 44.9%
- 10
Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025, thinking 44.6%
- 11 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 42.4%
- 12
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 42.2%
- 13 GPT-4o Aug 2024 41.3%
- 14
QVQ-72B-Preview 37.8%
- 15 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct 34.9%
- 16
Llama 3.2 90B 34.1%
- 17
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 33.7%
- 18 Qwen2-VL-72B 32.4%
- 19
Qwen2-VL-2B-Instruct 31.3%
- 20 Pangea-7B 31.2%
- 21
Qwen2.5-VL-3B 31.2%
- 22 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 30.8%
- 23 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct 30.2%
- 24
LLaVA-v1.6-34B 29.8%
- 25
LLaVA-OneVision 7B 29.4%
- 26
Llama 3.2 11B 29.4%
- 27
Cambrian-1-8B 28.9%
- 28
LLaVA-v1.5-13B 27.6%
- 29 LLaVA-1.6-7B 27.4%
- 30
Cambrian-1-13B 27.4%
- 31
LLaVA-OneVision 0.5B 27.2%
- 32 LLaVA-1.5-7B 26.9%
- 33 Qwen-VL 26.6%
- 34 llava-v1.6-vicuna-13b 25.5%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | o4-mini | 57% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | o3 | 54% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 52.7% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | o1 | 51.8% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 49.5% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 48.3% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 47.3% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | | 45% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 44.9% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 44.6% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | 42.4% | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 42.2% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 41.3% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 37.8% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct | 34.9% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 34.1% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 33.7% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | Qwen2-VL-72B | 32.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | | 31.3% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | Pangea-7B | 31.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | | 31.2% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | LLaVA-OneVision 72B | 30.8% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct | 30.2% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 29.8% | Jan 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 29.4% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | | 29.4% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | | 28.9% | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | | 27.6% | Oct 2023 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | LLaVA-1.6-7B | 27.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 30 | | 27.4% | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | | 27.2% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 32 | LLaVA-1.5-7B | 26.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 33 | Qwen-VL | 26.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 34 | llava-v1.6-vicuna-13b | 25.5% | Jan 2024 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 3 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.
2 models have held number one since its release in Apr 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs headline it less often now, last in Feb 2026
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 Feb 2026 | 64.8 | VisualPuzzle | |
| 11 Nov 2025 | 52.5 | VisualPuzzle |
2 system cards report it, from 2 labs
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 Feb 2026 | | 64.8 | VisualPuzzle (Table 3) | Capabilities |
| 26 Nov 2025 | | 57.2 | VisualPuzzles (Table 2) | 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%