We introduce MVGraph, a benchmark for evaluating large vision-language models (LVLMs) on multi-graph reasoning where the evidence required by a query is distributed across multiple interrelated visual graph views. Although such evidence commonly resides in source-specific graphs, temporal snapshots, or local observations, existing graph reasoning benchmarks remain confined to a single self-contained structure, assessing only graph perception and reasoning while leaving the alignment and composition of evidence across views underexplored. MVGraph comprises 8k instances spanning 8 graph-theoretic tasks, abstracted from two multi-graph scenarios (partial and temporal graph views). Each problem is programmatically constructed and verified to be unsolvable from a single view. Beyond end-to-end evaluation, we decompose multi-graph reasoning into four complementary capabilities---Perception, Alignment, Composition, and Reasoning---and design 29 diagnostic tasks with 64k instances to probe each one, along with golden intermediate representations for evaluating the intermediate process. Across 15 LVLMs, we reveal the difficulty of multi-graph reasoning and identify cross-view edge alignment and relation-level composition as prominent bottlenecks through stage-oriented diagnostics. Meanwhile, temporal constraints and increasing view counts expose further capability boundaries. Code and data are available at https://github.com/AAAndy-Zhu/MVGraph.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of evidence-fragmented visual graph reasoning in MVGraph , where three views provide complementary path segments.
Figure 2: Overview of MVGraph . Left: End-to-end graph-theoretic tasks span partial and temporal graph views. Right: Stage-oriented diagnostic tasks probe perception, alignment, composition, and reasoning.
Task group
# Tasks
# Instances
Views
Avg. views
Avg. nodes
Avg. edges
Graph-Theoretic
8
8,000
2–4
3.06
14.77
34.03
Perception
1
36,000
2–8
4.46
21.47
26.93
Alignment
10
10,000
2–8
4.89
24.07
28.49
Composition
8
8,000
2–8
4.81
25.33
24.67
Reasoning
10
10,000
2–8
3.43
16.19
30.98
Total
37
72,000
2–8
–
–
–
Table 1: Statistics of MVGraph .
Models
Partial graph views
Temporal graph views
Avg.
TS
MF
BM
HP
STS
MFC
SBM
THP
Qwen3.5-9B
0.1
0.3
36.9
40.0
0.0
30.2
0.2
0.4
13.5
Gemma-4-12B-it
0.0
5.5
60.6
43.1
0.1
45.3
0.4
8.7
20.5
GLM-4.6V-Flash
0.0
0.7
7.2
4.7
0.0
46.5
0.0
0.0
7.4
Ovis2.5-9B
0.0
0.2
18.5
2.3
0.0
41.3
0.0
0.2
7.8
Qwen3.8-Flash †
35.0
54.0
97.0
77.0
8.0
59.0
8.0
65.0
50.4
Table 2: Accuracy (%) on end-to-end graph-theoretic tasks of MVGraph in thinking mode. † denotes models accessed via API. The best result in each column within each model group is bolded.
Figure 5
Models
Partial
Temporal
Avg.
A-SN
A-VSN
A-SE
A-VSE
A-AN
A-RN
A-AE
A-RE
A-PN
A-PE
Qwen3.5-9B
82.1
94.0
55.2
36.0
98.1
92.1
29.8
35.5
99.6
75.5
69.8
Gemma-4-12B-it
81.3
91.0
57.1
29.8
98.4
91.9
46.5
44.9
95.0
80.6
71.7
GLM-4.6V-Flash
97.9
68.0
58.8
11.0
81.7
59.9
18.4
19.1
96.9
62.9
57.5
Ovis2.5-9B
69.4
65.7
53.4
4.0
86.1
72.0
8.3
12.6
92.2
65.9
53.0
Qwen3.8-Flash †
99.0
99.5
74.5
57.5
99.5
99.0
63.0
65.0
100.0
89.5
84.7
Table 3: Accuracy (%) of thinking-mode LVLMs on the ten alignment tasks of MVGraph . † denotes models accessed via API. The best result in each column is bolded.
Models
Partial
Temporal
Avg.
C-UN
C-UE
C-PA
C-CD
C-MVS
C-EV
C-PP
C-TPC
Qwen3.5-9B
94.1
33.7
95.0
77.5
99.1
99.2
98.0
58.5
81.9
Gemma-4-12B-it
92.0
43.1
91.0
72.0
91.3
90.7
98.5
36.0
76.8
GLM-4.6V-Flash
68.0
21.9
58.5
32.5
70.4
69.3
96.5
6.5
53.0
Ovis2.5-9B
60.6
16.8
40.0
40.0
66.3
63.0
96.5
1.0
48.0
Qwen3.8-Flash †
99.0
67.0
98.0
89.5
99.5
99.5
100.0
87.0
92.4
Table 4: Accuracy (%) of thinking-mode LVLMs on the eight composition tasks in MVGraph . † denotes models accessed via API. The best result in each column is bolded.
Models
Partial
Temporal
Avg.
R-TS
R-MF
R-BM
R-HP
R-BN
R-STS
R-MFC
R-SBM
R-THP
R-CE
Qwen3.5-9B
72.0
62.0
79.0
87.0
93.0
0.0
46.0
0.0
1.0
97.0
53.7
Gemma-4-12B-it
91.0
41.0
71.0
89.0
97.0
0.0
67.0
5.0
44.0
96.0
60.1
GLM-4.6V-Flash
0.0
2.0
9.0
3.0
50.5
0.0
52.0
0.0
0.0
65.5
18.2
Ovis2.5-9B
2.0
14.0
25.0
5.0
56.5
0.0
34.0
0.0
0.0
62.5
19.9
Qwen3.8-Flash †
93.0
73.0
93.0
86.0
87.0
16.0
70.0
28.0
65.0
69.5
68.1
Table 5: Accuracy (%) of thinking-mode LVLMs on the ten structure-prepared reasoning tasks in MVGraph . Models receive textualized structural evidence instead of graph images. † denotes models accessed via API. The best result in each column is bolded.
Figure 5: Diagnostic performance with thinking-mode across various number of graph views. The reasoning includes only Bridge-Node Criticality (R-BN) and Causal Edge Identification (R-CE).
Figure 6: Effect of view availability on MVGraph performance, where Full uses all graph views, Single View retains one randomly selected view, and Leave-One-Out removes that same view. Bars show mean accuracy on the sampled instances.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
ID
Task
Example question
Example answer
Partial graph views
TS
Topological Sorting
Merge all views into a directed acyclic graph and return a valid topological ordering of every node.
Table 6: Examples of the eight end-to-end graph-theoretic reasoning tasks. For tasks admitting multiple valid solutions, one valid answer is shown. Long structured answers are abbreviated for readability.
ID
Task
Example question
Example answer
Partial graph views
A-SN
Shared Nodes
Identify the node labels that are present in all graph views.
[E4, E61]
A-VSN
View-Specific Nodes
List the nodes that are exclusive to Graph 3.
[E30]
A-SE
Shared Edges
What edge triples are shared by every graph view?
[[E11, R1, E56]]
A-VSE
View-Specific Edges
What edge triples are unique to Graph 1 across the given graph views?
[[E1, R4, E61], [E4, R1, E71], [E15, R2, E61]]
Temporal graph views
Appendix
Table 7: Examples of the ten Alignment tasks. For tasks admitting multiple valid solutions, one valid answer is shown. Long structured answers are abbreviated for readability.
ID
Task
Example question
Example answer
Partial graph views
C-UN
Union Node Count
How many unique node labels appear in the union of all graph views?
22
C-UE
Union Edge Count
Across all graph views, how many different edge triples are shown?
28
C-PA
Path Assembly
After merging all graph views, give one path from E28 to E21 as an ordered list of edge triples.
Which graph views form the smallest sufficient set for connecting E5 to E76?
[1, 2]
Appendix
Table 8: Examples of the eight Composition tasks. For tasks admitting multiple valid solutions, one valid answer is shown. Long structured answers are abbreviated for readability.
ID
Task
Example question
Example answer
Partial graph views
R-TS
Topological Sorting
Merge all views into a directed acyclic graph and return a valid topological ordering of every node.
Table 9: Examples of the ten reasoning tasks. For tasks admitting multiple valid solutions, one valid answer is shown. Long structured answers are abbreviated for readability.
ID
Task
Instances
Views
Avg. views
Avg. nodes
Avg. edges
Partial graph views
TS
Topological Sorting
1,000
2–4
2.98
13.01
36.23
MF
Maximum Flow
1,000
2–4
2.98
12.00
25.54
BM
Bipartite Matching
1,000
2–4
3.02
18.00
34.28
HP
Hamiltonian Path
1,000
2–4
3.03
15.51
40.91
Temporal graph views
Appendix
Table 10: Per-task statistics for the end-to-end graph-theoretic challenges. Average node and edge counts are computed after deduplication across all views of an instance.
ID
Task
Instances
Views
Avg. views
Avg. nodes
Avg. edges
Partial graph views
A-SN
Shared Nodes
1,000
2–8
4.78
33.10
47.51
A-VSN
View-Specific Nodes
1,000
2–8
4.76
32.91
40.19
A-SE
Shared Edges
1,000
2–8
4.72
33.90
44.91
A-VSE
View-Specific Edges
1,000
2–8
4.72
32.71
41.10
Temporal graph views
Appendix
Table 11: Per-task statistics for the alignment diagnostics.
ID
Task
Instances
Views
Avg. views
Avg. nodes
Avg. edges
Partial graph views
C-UN
Union Node Count
1,000
2–8
4.71
32.51
39.72
C-UE
Union Edge Count
1,000
2–8
4.70
32.70
39.67
C-PA
Path Assembly
1,000
2–8
4.75
29.48
24.91
C-CD
Component Decomposition
1,000
2–8
4.75
12.73
10.22
C-MVS
Minimal View Set
1,000
2–8
4.79
31.41
26.45
Appendix
Table 12: Per-task statistics for the composition diagnostics.
ID
Task
Instances
Views
Avg. views
Avg. nodes
Avg. edges
Partial graph views
R-TS
Topological Sorting
1,000
2–4
2.98
13.01
36.23
R-MF
Maximum Flow
1,000
2–4
2.98
12.00
25.54
R-BM
Bipartite Matching
1,000
2–4
3.02
18.00
34.28
R-HP
Hamiltonian Path
1,000
2–4
3.03
15.51
40.91
R-BN
Bridge-Node Criticality
1,000
2–8
4.78
29.69
25.08
Appendix
Table 13: Per-task statistics for the structure-prepared reasoning diagnostics. The eight graph-theoretic tasks reuse the underlying instances in Table 10 , but supply structural information rather than requiring visual graph reconstruction.
Model
TS
STS
MF
MFC
BM
SBM
HP
THP
Avg.
No-Thinking
Gemma-4-12B-it
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.9
0.0
0.1
4.0
0.0
5.6
Qwen3.5-9B
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
5.2
Ovis2.5-9B
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
5.2
Qwen3-VL-8B
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.3
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
5.4
GLM-4.6V-Flash
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
Appendix
Table 14: Performance of LVLMs on the 8 end-to-end graph-theoretic reasoning tasks of MVGraph , where † denotes evaluation via API called. The best results are bolded .
Recent Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable progress across diverse vision-language tasks, creating an urgent need for more challenging benchmarks. Yet existing evaluations still provide limited insight into whether these models can truly reason over structured visual information. Visual Graph Reasoning (VGR) offers a compelling testbed for this challenge, requiring models to integrate perception, structural understanding, and multi-step reasoning over graph-based visual inputs. However, prior VGR benchmarks often reduce the task to visual perception followed by text-based reasoning, restrict evaluation to single-image settings, rely on answer-only metrics, and underrepresent realistic graph-centric scenarios. To bridge the gap, we introduce GraphVerse, a unified benchmark that jointly evaluates perception, visual reasoning, and text-based graph reasoning in MLLMs under both single-image and paired-image settings. At its core is a suite of Graph-centric Image Editing (GIE) strategies that modify graph images while preserving their semantics, turning them into active tests of visual reasoning. We further propose VGR-Score, a process-sensitive metric that evaluates reasoning quality beyond final-answer accuracy. Extensive experiments reveal several key limitations of current MLLMs in VGR, while also validating the effectiveness of GIE strategies and the transferability of GraphVerse to broader multimodal reasoning capabilities. The code is available at https://github.com/sunyuanfu/GraphVerse.
Yuanfu Sun, Yuanhang Ren, Kang Li +5
New York University · Sensetime Research · Tsinghua University +3
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in aligning and understanding multimodal signals, yet their potential to reason over structured data, where multimodal entities are connected through explicit relational graphs, remains largely underexplored. Unlocking this capability is crucial for real-world applications such as social networks, recommendation systems, and scientific discovery, where multimodal information is inherently structured. To bridge this gap, we present GraphVLM, a systematic benchmark designed to evaluate and harness the capabilities of VLMs for multimodal graph learning (MMGL). GraphVLM investigates three complementary paradigms for integrating VLMs with graph reasoning: (1) VLM-as-Encoder, which enriches graph neural networks through multimodal feature fusion; (2) VLM-as-Aligner, which bridges modalities in latent or linguistic space to facilitate LLM-based structured reasoning; and (3) VLM-as-Predictor, which directly employs VLMs as multimodal backbones for graph learning tasks. Extensive experiments across six datasets from diverse domains demonstrate that VLMs enhance multimodal graph learning via all three roles. Among these paradigms, VLM-as-Predictor achieves the most substantial and consistent performance gains, revealing the untapped potential of vision-language models as a new foundation for multimodal graph learning. The benchmark code is publicly available at https://github.com/oamyjin/GraphVLM.
Jiajin Liu, Dongzhe Fan, Chuanhao Ji +2
NYU Shanghai · New York University · East China Normal University +1
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) consistently require new arenas to guide their expanding boundaries, yet their capabilities with hypergraphs remain unexplored. In the real world, hypergraphs have significant practical applications in areas such as life sciences and social communities. Recent advancements in LVLMs have shown promise in understanding complex topologies, yet there remains a lack of a benchmark to delineate the capabilities of LVLMs with hypergraphs, leaving the boundaries of their abilities unclear. To fill this gap, in this paper, we introduce HyperGVL, the first benchmark to evaluate the proficiency of LVLMs in hypergraph understanding and reasoning. HyperGVL provides a comprehensive assessment of 12 advanced LVLMs across 84,000 vision-language question-answering (QA) samples spanning 12 tasks, ranging from basic component counting to complex NP-hard problem reasoning. The involved hypergraphs contain multiscale synthetic structures and real-world citation and protein networks. Moreover, we examine the effects of 12 textual and visual hypergraph representations and introduce a generalizable router WiseHyGR that improves LVLMs in hypergraph via learning adaptive representations. We believe that this work is a step forward in connecting hypergraphs with LVLMs.
Yanbin Wei, Chun Kang, Siwei Li +11
1Southern University of Science and Technology · 2Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · 4Beihang University +1