CharXiv Reasoning (with tools)Browse 284 families

CharXiv Reasoning (with tools)

Can the model extract and reason over information in images or documents?

Version / measure
Domain
Vision
Ranked models
9
Reported values
12
Reports
3 · lab
Direction
Higher is better
Status
Version not specified

Rankings

Best reported score per model across effort settings

9 models
#ModelBest settingScore
1Claude Opus 4.8Anthropicmaxcost n/a1 value · Jul 9 · source89.9%
2Gemini 3.6 FlashGooglereportedcost n/a2 values · Aug 13 · source89.4%
3Muse Spark 1.0Metareportedcost n/a1 value · Jul 9 · source88.9%
4Gemini 3.7 FlashGooglereportedcost n/a1 value · Aug 13 · source88.7%
5Muse Spark 1.1Metaxhighcost n/a1 value · Jul 9 · source88.4%
6Claude Sonnet 5Anthropicreportedcost n/a2 values · Aug 13 · source88.3%
7Gemini 3.5 FlashGooglereportedcost n/a1 value · Jul 21 · source84.9%
8GPT-5.5OpenAIxhighcost n/a1 value · Jul 9 · source84.8%
9Gemini 3.1 ProGooglereportedcost n/a2 values · Jul 21 · source83.2%

Effort curve

Score vs. reported cost. Lines connect complete sweeps only.

0 values
No cost-linked effort sweep for this version.
Definition and comparison boundarypublic methodology

Can the model extract and reason over information in images or documents?

Visual perception and multimodal reasoning under the reported protocol. Higher is better. The value is the percentage reported in this lab's table.

Harness, tools, prompts, attempt count, and benchmark version can materially change the result. Compare within one reporting context.

With tools. Gemini's tool-enabled setup uses search and code execution. 1,000 questions; gpt-oss-120B high-reasoning judge; with code execution.

Method / source ↗