Benchmark Almanac

R-Bench (real-world robustness)

Only in system cards

Models answer questions about images degraded by 33 kinds of real-world corruption, from capture to display. Scores compare distorted and reference images.

The set has 2,970 human-labeled question answer pairs. It is not the RBench video generation benchmark from Peking University.

Released
October 2024
Kind
General visual questions
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Last in a system card
November 2025
Last model added
November 2025

In the authors’ words

The outstanding performance of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) has made them widely applied in vision-related tasks. However, various corruptions in the real world mean that images will not be as ideal as in simulations, presenting significant challenges for the practical application of LMMs. To address this issue, we introduce R-Bench, a benchmark focused on the **Real-world Robustness of LMMs**. Specifically, we: (a) model the complete link from user capture to LMMs reception, comprising 33 corruption dimensions, including 7 steps according to the corruption sequence, and 7 groups based on low-level attributes; (b) collect reference/distorted image dataset before/after corruption, including 2,970 question-answer pairs with human labeling; (c) propose comprehensive evaluation for absolute/relative robustness and benchmark 20 mainstream LMMs. Results show that while LMMs can correctly handle the original reference images, their performance is not stable when faced with distorted images, and there is a significant gap in robustness compared to the human visual system. We hope that R-Bench will inspire improving the robustness of LMMs, **extending them from experimental simulations to the real-world application**. Check https://q-future.github.io/R-Bench for details.

Abstract of R-Bench: Are your Large Multimodal Model Robust to Real-world Corruptions? (arXiv:2410.05474, CC0)
2
Models scored in lab cards
2
System cards report it, from 2 labs

InternVL3.5-241B-A28B leads with 75.4%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 75.4%
  2. 2 Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL 69.7%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 75.4% Aug 2025 Lab model card
2 Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL 69.7% Nov 2025 Lab model card

Scores over time

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

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) InternVL3.5-241B-A28B

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

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

2 system cards report it, from 2 labs

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Nov 6, 2025 Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL technical report 69.7 R-Bench (dis), reasoning on (Table 3). Reasoning off 75.2 Capabilities
Aug 25, 2025 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B technical report 75.4 R-Bench (dis) (Table 5) Robustness

More in Vision

All 281 in Vision
  • MMMU In use 11.5K college-level multimodal questions across 30 subjects. Multiple-choice and open accuracy. GPT-5.1 85.4%
  • MMMU-Pro In use Harder MMMU: college-level multimodal questions with more options and vision-only inputs to remove text shortcuts. GPT-5.6 Sol 84.6%
  • CharXiv In use Chart understanding on real arXiv figures. Reasoning questions require synthesizing information from complex charts. Claude Fable 5 93.5%
  • MATH-Vision (MathVision) In use 3,040 competition math problems with visual context. Answer accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 97.7%
  • MMStar In use Models answer 1,500 human-curated image questions that cannot be solved without the image, across 6 core capabilities. Scored by accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 85.9%
  • ChartQA In use Models answer human-written and generated questions about chart images that need visual and arithmetic reasoning. Scored by relaxed accuracy with a 5 percent numeric tolerance. Command A Vision 90.9%