Papers › HumanEval-V: Evaluating Visual Understanding and Reasoning Abilities of Large...
HumanEval-V: Evaluating Visual Understanding and Reasoning Abilities of Large Multimodal Models Through Coding Tasks
Fengji Zhang, Linquan Wu, Huiyu Bai, Guancheng Lin, Xiao Li, Xiao Yu, Yue Wang, Bei Chen, Jacky Keung
Coding tasks have been valuable for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), as they demand the comprehension of high-level instructions, complex reasoning, and the implementation of functional programs -- core capabilities for advancing Artificial General Intelligence. Despite the progress in Large Multimodal Models (LMMs), which extend LLMs with visual perception and understanding capabilities, there remains a notable lack of coding benchmarks that rigorously assess these models, particularly in tasks that emphasize visual reasoning. To address this gap, we introduce HumanEval-V, a novel and lightweight benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LMMs' visual understanding and reasoning capabilities through code generation. HumanEval-V includes 108 carefully crafted, entry-level Python coding tasks derived from platforms like CodeForces and Stack Overflow. Each task is adapted by modifying the context and algorithmic patterns of the original problems, with visual elements redrawn to ensure distinction from the source, preventing potential data leakage. LMMs are required to complete the code solution based on the provided visual context and a predefined Python function signature outlining the task requirements. Every task is equipped with meticulously handcrafted test cases to ensure a thorough and reliable evaluation of model-generated solutions. We evaluate 19 state-of-the-art LMMs using HumanEval-V, uncovering significant challenges. Proprietary models like GPT-4o achieve only 13% pass@1 and 36.4% pass@10, while open-weight models with 70B parameters score below 4% pass@1. Ablation studies further reveal the limitations of current LMMs in vision reasoning and coding capabilities. These results underscore key areas for future research to enhance LMMs' capabilities. We have open-sourced our code and benchmark at https://github.com/HumanEval-V/HumanEval-V-Benchmark.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2410.12381")
Code
Syntology Ran 6 of 6 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 6 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 6 samples from 1 repository, 6 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
6 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 6 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from HumanEval-V/HumanEval-V-Benchmark. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
f0c3af44403d4d56 · report
8ef282a84b503ff7 · report
4ce220ab82541813 · report
2d7add6459ff5b37 · report
a917ba970738a94f · report
c0e3e76bb71a2cc8 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections