CharXiv-R
Progress Over Time
Interactive timeline showing model performance evolution on CharXiv-R
CharXiv-R Leaderboard
| Context | Cost | License | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Anthropic | — | — | — | ||
| 2 | Anthropic | — | 1.0M | $5.00 / $25.00 | ||
| 3 | Anthropic | — | 1.0M | $5.00 / $25.00 | ||
| 4 | Anthropic | — | 1.0M | $3.00 / $15.00 | ||
| 5 | Moonshot AI | 1.0T | 262K | $0.75 / $3.50 | ||
| 6 | ByteDance | — | — | — | ||
| 6 | Meta | — | — | — | ||
| 8 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | — | 1.0M | $0.32 / $1.28 | ||
| 9 | Google | — | 1.0M | $1.50 / $9.00 | ||
| 10 | ByteDance | — | — | — | ||
| 11 | OpenAI | — | 400K | $1.75 / $14.00 | ||
| 12 | OpenAI | — | 400K | $5.00 / $30.00 | ||
| 13 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | — | 1.0M | $0.50 / $3.00 | ||
| 14 | Google | — | — | — | ||
| 15 | OpenAI | — | — | — | ||
| 16 | Xiaomi | 311B | 1.0M | $0.17 / $0.34 | ||
| 17 | Google | — | 1.0M | $0.50 / $3.00 | ||
| 18 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 27B | 262K | $0.30 / $2.40 | ||
| 19 | OpenAI | — | — | — | ||
| 20 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 28B | 262K | $0.60 / $3.60 | ||
| 21 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 35B | — | — | ||
| 22 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 35B | — | — | ||
| 22 | Moonshot AI | 1.0T | — | — | ||
| 24 | Anthropic | — | 1.0M | $5.00 / $25.00 | ||
| 25 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 122B | — | — | ||
| 26 | Google | — | 1.0M | $0.25 / $1.50 | ||
| 27 | OpenAI | — | — | — | ||
| 28 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 236B | — | — | ||
| 29 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 33B | — | — | ||
| 30 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 33B | — | — | ||
| 31 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 236B | — | — | ||
| 32 | OpenAI | — | 128K | $2.50 / $10.00 | ||
| 33 | OpenAI | — | 1.0M | $0.40 / $1.60 | ||
| 34 | OpenAI | — | 1.0M | $2.00 / $8.00 | ||
| 35 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 31B | — | — | ||
| 36 | OpenAI | — | — | — | ||
| 37 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 9B | 262K | $0.18 / $2.09 | ||
| 38 | Cohere | 218B | — | — | ||
| 39 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 4B | 262K | $0.10 / $1.00 | ||
| 40 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 31B | — | — | ||
| 41 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 9B | — | — | ||
| 42 | OpenAI | — | 1.0M | $0.10 / $0.40 | ||
| 43 | Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team | 4B | 262K | $0.10 / $0.60 |
What is CharXiv-R?
CharXiv-R is the reasoning component of the CharXiv benchmark, focusing on complex reasoning questions that require synthesizing information across visual chart elements. It evaluates multimodal large language models on their ability to understand and reason about scientific charts from arXiv papers through various reasoning tasks.
CharXiv-R is a multimodal benchmark evaluating models on multimodal, reasoning, and vision tasks. LLM Stats tracks 43 models on this benchmark, scored on a 0–1 scale. The current average is 0.7, with the leader at 0.9.
Compare leaders on the best AI for multimodal, best AI for reasoning and best AI for vision leaderboards.
Current leaders
Claude Mythos Preview from Anthropic currently leads the CharXiv-R leaderboard with a score of 0.932 across 43 evaluated AI models.
Source paper
- Title
- CharXiv: Charting Gaps in Realistic Chart Understanding in Multimodal LLMs
- Authors
- Zirui Wang, Mengzhou Xia, Luxi He, Howard Chen, and 9 others
- Published
- arXiv
- 2406.18521
Abstract
Chart understanding plays a pivotal role when applying Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to real-world tasks such as analyzing scientific papers or financial reports. However, existing datasets often focus on oversimplified and homogeneous charts with template-based questions, leading to an over-optimistic measure of progress. We demonstrate that although open-source models can appear to outperform strong proprietary models on these benchmarks, a simple stress test with slightly different charts or questions can deteriorate performance by up to 34.5%. In this work, we propose CharXiv, a comprehensive evaluation suite involving 2,323 natural, challenging, and diverse charts from arXiv papers. CharXiv includes two types of questions: 1) descriptive questions about examining basic chart elements and 2) reasoning questions that require synthesizing information across complex visual elements in the chart. To ensure quality, all charts and questions are handpicked, curated, and verified by human experts. Our results reveal a substantial, previously underestimated gap between the reasoning skills of the strongest proprietary model (i.e., GPT-4o), which achieves 47.1% accuracy, and the strongest open-source model (i.e., InternVL Chat V1.5), which achieves 29.2%. All models lag far behind human performance of 80.5%, underscoring weaknesses in the chart understanding capabilities of existing MLLMs. We hope CharXiv facilitates future research on MLLM chart understanding by providing a more realistic and faithful measure of progress. Project page and leaderboard: https://charxiv.github.io/
FAQ
Common questions about the CharXiv-R benchmark and leaderboard.