OST-Bench
Vision-language models act as an agent exploring a 3D scene and answer spatial questions from the views seen so far. The set has 10k questions over 1.4k scenes.
Scenes come from ScanNet, Matterport3D and ARKitScenes. VLMEvalKit supports it.
- Made by
- Shanghai AI Laboratory (OpenRobotLab) and collaborators
- Released
- July 2025
- Kind
- Embodied reasoning
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Multiple choice
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-4.1 #137 on the capability index
- Last model added
- April 2025
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in integrating vision and language for complex reasoning. While most existing benchmarks evaluate models under offline settings with a fixed set of pre-recorded inputs, we introduce OST-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate Online Spatio-Temporal understanding from the perspective of an agent actively exploring a scene. The Online aspect emphasizes the need to process and reason over incrementally acquired observations, while the Spatio-Temporal component requires integrating current visual inputs with historical memory to support dynamic spatial reasoning. OST-Bench better reflects the challenges of real-world embodied perception. Built on an efficient data collection pipeline, OST-Bench consists of 1.4k scenes and 10k question-answer pairs collected from ScanNet, Matterport3D, and ARKitScenes. We evaluate several leading MLLMs on OST-Bench and observe that they fall short on tasks requiring complex spatio-temporal reasoning. Under the online setting, their accuracy declines as the exploration horizon extends and the memory grows. Through further experimental analysis, we identify common error patterns across models and find that both complex clue-based spatial reasoning demands and long-term memory retrieval requirements significantly drop model performance along two separate axes, highlighting the core challenges that must be addressed to improve online embodied reasoning. To foster further research and development in the field, our codes, dataset, and benchmark are available. Our project page is: https://rbler1234.github.io/OSTBench.github.io/
Gemini-2.0-Flash (snapshot unspecified) tops the leaderboard with 54.3%
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. Every run is in the next chart. 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 GPT-4.1, at 53.4%.
The newest model with a score here came out in April 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 54.3 Gemini-2.0-Flash (snapshot unspecified)
- 53.4 GPT-4.1
- 51.2 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified)
- 51.1
InternVL2_5-78B
- 50.8
InternVL2.5-38B
- 47.8 Claude-3.5-Sonnet (snapshot unspecified)
- 47.3 QwenVL-2.5-32B
- 45.9 LLaVA-Video-72B
- 45.6 QwenVL-2.5-72B
- 44.6
InternVL2.5-8B
- 44.6 LLaVA-OneVision 72B
- 41.2 QwenVL-2.5-7B
- 40.4
LLaVA-OneVision 7B
- 39.3 LLaVA-Video-7B
- 1 Gemini-2.0-Flash (snapshot unspecified) Multi-round; thinking 54.3%
- 2 GPT-4.1 Multi-round 53.4%
- 3 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) VLMEvalkit interleaved 51.2%
- 4
InternVL2_5-78B Multi-round 51.1%
- 5
InternVL2.5-38B Multi-round 50.8%
- 6 Claude-3.5-Sonnet (snapshot unspecified) Multi-round 47.8%
- 7 QwenVL-2.5-32B VLMEvalkit interleaved 47.3%
- 8 LLaVA-Video-72B VLMEvalkit interleaved 45.9%
- 9 QwenVL-2.5-72B Multi-round 45.6%
- 10
InternVL2.5-8B Multi-round 44.6%
- 11 LLaVA-OneVision 72B VLMEvalkit interleaved 44.6%
- 12 QwenVL-2.5-7B Multi-round 41.2%
- 13
LLaVA-OneVision 7B Multi-round 40.4%
- 14 LLaVA-Video-7B Multi-round 39.3%
Source: Official OST-Bench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gemini-2.0-Flash (snapshot unspecified) | 54.3% | Multi-round; thinking | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-4.1 | 53.4% | Multi-round | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) | 51.2% | VLMEvalkit interleaved | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 51.1% | Multi-round | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 50.8% | Multi-round | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude-3.5-Sonnet (snapshot unspecified) | 47.8% | Multi-round | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | QwenVL-2.5-32B | 47.3% | VLMEvalkit interleaved | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | LLaVA-Video-72B | 45.9% | VLMEvalkit interleaved | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | QwenVL-2.5-72B | 45.6% | Multi-round | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 44.6% | Multi-round | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | LLaVA-OneVision 72B | 44.6% | VLMEvalkit interleaved | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | QwenVL-2.5-7B | 41.2% | Multi-round | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 40.4% | Multi-round | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | LLaVA-Video-7B | 39.3% | Multi-round | Official leaderboard |
Scores at each effort level
Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.
Source: Official OST-Bench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-4.1 | Multi-round | 53.4% | |||
| | Multi-round | 51.1% | |||
| GPT-4.1 | VLMEvalkit interleaved | 51% | |||
| | Multi-round | 50.8% | |||
| | VLMEvalkit interleaved | 48.5% | |||
| | VLMEvalkit interleaved | 47.9% | |||
| | Multi-round | 44.6% | |||
| LLaVA-OneVision 72B | VLMEvalkit interleaved | 44.6% | |||
| LLaVA-OneVision 72B | Multi-round | 43.4% | |||
| | Multi-round | 40.4% | |||
| | VLMEvalkit interleaved | 35.3% | |||
| | VLMEvalkit interleaved | 34.9% |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official OST-Bench leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official OST-Bench 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 Robotics
- ERQA In use 400 multiple-choice visual questions from robot and egocentric footage on spatial, trajectory, action and state reasoning. Accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 78.5%
- RoboDojo In use Generalist manipulation policies run 42 Isaac Sim tasks and 18 remote real-robot tasks. Scored by task score and success rate. GPT-6 Astra 29%
- RoboLab In use Zero-shot DROID Franka policies in Isaac Lab on 120 tabletop tasks at three instruction levels, 10 episodes each. Success rate. FLUX 3 Action 42.9%
- Progress classification (Google DeepMind) In use Models assign each frame of a robot video to one of five task-progress bands from 0 to 100 percent. Scored by accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 57.4%
- Human proximity (Google DeepMind robotics) In use Models judge from robot camera views whether a human is within 1 meter, a spatial awareness check for safe robot behavior. Scored by accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 93%
- Moment finding (Google DeepMind) In use Models find the moment in a robot video when an event happens. Scored by accuracy and mean absolute time distance in seconds.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 91.3%