MathVista: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Foundation Models in Visual Contexts
Pan Lu, Hritik Bansal, Tony Xia, Liu, Jiacheng, Chunyuan Li, Hannaneh Hajishirzi et al. · 2023 · 11 citationsRead the paper
Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit impressive problem-solving skills in many tasks and domains, but their ability in mathematical reasoning in visual contexts has not been systematically studied. To bridge this gap, we present MathVista, a benchmark designed to combine challenges from diverse mathematical and visual tasks. It consists of 6,141 examples, derived from 28 existing multimodal datasets involving mathematics and 3 newly created datasets (i.e., IQTest, FunctionQA, and PaperQA). Completing these tasks requires fine-grained, deep visual understanding and compositional reasoning, which all state-of-the-art foundation models find challenging. With MathVista, we have conducted a comprehensive, quantitative evaluation of 12 prominent foundation models. The best-performing GPT-4V model achieves an overall accuracy of 49.9%, substantially outperforming Bard, the second-best performer, by 15.1%. Our in-depth analysis reveals that the superiority of GPT-4V is mainly attributed to its enhanced visual perception and mathematical reasoning. However, GPT-4V still falls short of human performance by 10.4%, as it often struggles to understand complex figures and perform rigorous reasoning. This significant gap underscores the critical role that MathVista will play in the development of general-purpose AI agents capable of tackling mathematically intensive and visually rich real-world tasks. We further explore the new ability of self-verification, the application of self-consistency, and the interactive chatbot capabilities of GPT-4V, highlighting its promising potential for future research. The project is available at https://mathvista.github.io/.
What the full text shows
Shown in the lab- GPT-4V achieved the highest overall accuracy among evaluated foundation models. — 49.9% (Evaluated on the MathVista testmini subset via playground chatbot)
- GPT-4V outperformed the second-best model (Bard) by a significant margin. — 15.1% higher accuracy (Overall accuracy on MathVista)
- A performance gap remains between the best AI model and human performance. — 10.4% lower accuracy (GPT-4V vs. human baseline on MathVista)
- Augmented LLMs (provided with image captions and OCR text) outperformed text-only LLMs. — 33.9% (best augmented) vs 29.2% (best text-only) (2-shot GPT-4 using PoT (augmented) vs 2-shot GPT-4 using CoT (text-only))
- GPT-4 answer extraction from detailed responses is highly accurate. — 99.5% accuracy (Preliminary study of 200 examples)
- Setup
- Benchmark consists of 6,141 examples across 7 reasoning types and 5 primary tasks; evaluated 12 models including text-only LLMs, augmented LLMs, and LMMs.
- How
- The researchers created the MathVista benchmark by consolidating 28 existing multimodal datasets and 3 new datasets. They evaluated 12 foundation models using a three-stage protocol: response generation, LLM-based answer extraction, and accuracy score calculation.
- Limitations
- GPT-4V evaluation was performed manually via playground chatbot due to lack of API access. · Models still struggle with complex figures and rigorous reasoning.
Summarized by Gemma 4 from the open-access full text · 9 Oct 2026. Read it