Benchmark Almanac

AMBER

GPT-4V (snapshot unspecified) 91.4 tops its leaderboard mPLUG-Owl2 84.0 leads the models we track
Not in model cards

Multimodal models are checked for object, attribute and relation hallucinations in generative and discriminative tasks, scored without an LLM judge.

177 GitHub stars at November 1st, 2026.

Released
November 2023
Kind
Hallucination rates
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Last model added
November 2023
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Despite making significant progress in multi-modal tasks, current Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) encounter the significant challenge of hallucinations, which may lead to harmful consequences. Therefore, evaluating MLLMs' hallucinations is becoming increasingly important in model improvement and practical application deployment. Previous works are limited in high evaluation costs (e.g., relying on humans or advanced LLMs) and insufficient evaluation dimensions (e.g., types of tasks and hallucinations). In this paper, we propose an LLM-free multi-dimensional benchmark AMBER, which can be used to evaluate both generative task and discriminative task including existence, attribute and relation hallucination. Based on AMBER, we design a low-cost and efficient evaluation pipeline. Additionally, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation and detailed analysis of mainstream MLLMs including GPT-4V(ision), and also give guideline suggestions for mitigating hallucinations. The data and code of AMBER are available at https://github.com/junyangwang0410/AMBER.

Abstract of AMBER: An LLM-free Multi-dimensional Benchmark for MLLMs Hallucination Evaluation (arXiv:2311.07397, CC0)
9
Entries on its own leaderboard, 2 models we track

GPT-4V (snapshot unspecified) tops the leaderboard with 91.4

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders. The best model we track is mPLUG-Owl2, at 84.0.

  1. 1 GPT-4V (snapshot unspecified) 91.4
  2. 2 Qwen-VL 89.7
  3. 3 InstructBLIP 86.5
  4. 4 mPLUG-Owl2 84.0
  5. 5 LLaVA-1.5 83.5
  6. 6 CogVLM-17B-Chat 83.4
  7. 7 MiniGPT-4 75.6
  8. 8 LLaVA 60.6
  9. 9 mPLUG-Owl 48.7

Source: Official AMBER leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-4V (snapshot unspecified) 91.4 Official leaderboard
2 Qwen-VL 89.7 Official leaderboard
3 InstructBLIP 86.5 Official leaderboard
4 mPLUG-Owl2 84.0 Nov 2023 Official leaderboard
5 LLaVA-1.5 83.5 Official leaderboard
6 CogVLM-17B-Chat 83.4 Nov 2023 Official leaderboard
7 MiniGPT-4 75.6 Official leaderboard
8 LLaVA 60.6 Official leaderboard
9 mPLUG-Owl 48.7 Official leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
83.4 83.6 83.8 84.0 2024 83.4 83.6 83.8 84.0 2024

Source: Official AMBER leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Factuality

All 74 in Factuality
  • SimpleVQA In use Models answer 2,025 short factual questions about images across 9 tasks and 9 topics. An LLM judge grades answers against fixed references. Qwen3.7-Plus 81.7%
  • HallusionBench In use Models answer 1,129 yes or no questions about 346 images, built in pairs to expose language hallucination and visual illusion. Scored by accuracy. Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 73.5%
  • SimpleQA Verified In use 1,000 human-verified, de-duplicated short-answer factual questions measuring parametric knowledge. Gemini 3.1 Pro 77.5%
  • Kimi Hallu Bench In use Models answer hard prompts drawn from practical work tasks. Fact-checking agents score the share of claims that are hallucinated. GPT-6 Astra 4.20%
  • Internal adversarially-designed factuality evaluations In use Models answer adversarial questions in nine categories such as history, math and code. Scored on agreement with human ideal responses. GPT-6 Luna 7.60%
  • AA-Omniscience v1.1 In use Models answer 3,000 knowledge questions in six domains without tools and may abstain. The index adds correct answers and subtracts wrong ones. Inkling 2 Small 16.1