We-Math
Models solve visual math problems decomposed into sub-problems by knowledge concept. Scoring compares sub-problem and full-problem results to diagnose knowledge and generalization gaps.
A successor, We-Math 2.0, followed in August 2025.
In the authors’ words
Visual mathematical reasoning, as a fundamental visual reasoning ability, has received widespread attention from the Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) community. Existing benchmarks, such as MathVista and MathVerse, focus more on the result-oriented performance but neglect the underlying principles in knowledge acquisition and generalization. Inspired by human-like mathematical reasoning, we introduce WE-MATH, the first benchmark specifically designed to explore the problem-solving principles beyond end-to-end performance. We meticulously collect and categorize 6.5K visual math problems, spanning 67 hierarchical knowledge concepts and five layers of knowledge granularity. We decompose composite problems into sub-problems according to the required knowledge concepts and introduce a novel four-dimensional metric, namely Insufficient Knowledge (IK), Inadequate Generalization (IG), Complete Mastery (CM), and Rote Memorization (RM), to hierarchically assess inherent issues in LMMs' reasoning process. With WE-MATH, we conduct a thorough evaluation of existing LMMs in visual mathematical reasoning and reveal a negative correlation between solving steps and problem-specific performance. We confirm the IK issue of LMMs can be effectively improved via knowledge augmentation strategies. More notably, the primary challenge of GPT-4o has significantly transitioned from IK to IG, establishing it as the first LMM advancing towards the knowledge generalization stage. In contrast, other LMMs exhibit a marked inclination towards Rote Memorization - they correctly solve composite problems involving multiple knowledge concepts yet fail to answer sub-problems. We anticipate that WE-MATH will open new pathways for advancements in visual mathematical reasoning for LMMs. The WE-MATH data and evaluation code are available at https://github.com/We-Math/We-Math.
- Level
- School Students, from grade school to high school
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Multiple choice
Qwen 3.6 Plus leads with 89% among models released by May 2026
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
The newest model with a score here came out in May 2026, and nobody has reported 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
Qwen 3.6 Plus 89%
- 2
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 87.9%
- 3
EXAONE 4.5 33B 79.1%
- 4
Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 75.5%
- 5
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 74.8%
- 6
STEP3-VL-10B 73%
- 7 GLM-4.6V 69.8%
- 8 GLM-4.5V 68.8%
- 9 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 63.8%
- 10
InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 62.3%
- 11
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL 39.3%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 89% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 87.9% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 79.1% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 75.5% | May 2026 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 74.8% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 6 | | 73% | Jan 2026 | Model card | |
| 7 | GLM-4.6V | 69.8% | Dec 2025 | Model card | |
| 8 | GLM-4.5V | 68.8% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 9 | GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking | 63.8% | Jul 2025 | Model card | |
| 10 | | 62.3% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 11 | | 39.3% | Nov 2025 | Model card |
5 models have held number one since its release in Jul 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
The best score passed 85% in Feb 2026
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 May 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 May 2026 | 75.5 | WeMath | |
| 9 Apr 2026 | 79.1 | WeMath | |
| 2 Apr 2026 | 89 | We-Math | |
| 16 Feb 2026 | 87.9 | We-Math | |
| 8 Dec 2025 | GLM-4.6V | 69.8 | WeMath |
| 25 Aug 2025 | 62.3 | WeMath | |
| 11 Aug 2025 | GLM-4.5V | 68.8 | WeMath |
| 1 Jul 2025 | GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking | 63.8 | WeMath |
9 system cards report it, from 7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 Jun 2026 | | 75.5 | WeMath (Figure 5, printed value) | Capabilities |
| 9 Apr 2026 | | 79.1 | We-Math (Table 2, Reasoning mode) | Capabilities |
| 14 Jan 2026 | | 73 | We-Math, SeRe (Tables 1 and 3). PaCoRe 73.90 | Capabilities |
| 1 Jan 2026 | GLM-4.6V technical report | 65.9 | WeMath, GLM-4.6V thinking (Table 2). The launch image prints 69.8 | Capabilities |
| 26 Nov 2025 | | 74.8 | We-Math (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| 6 Nov 2025 | | 39.3 | WeMath, reasoning on (Table 3). Reasoning off 31.5 | Capabilities |
| 25 Aug 2025 | | 62.3 | WeMath (Table 2, Table 3). With parallel thinking 64.4 | Capabilities |
| 13 Aug 2025 | GLM-4.5V technical report | 68.8 | WeMath, GLM-4.5V thinking (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| 1 Jul 2025 | GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking technical report | 63.8 | WeMath, GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking thinking (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%