RISEBench++
Image editing models follow 1,000 bilingual instructions over six reasoning types, adding counterfactual and hybrid reasoning. It covers single-image, multi-image and multi-turn editing across 65 task types.
The makers call it an extension of RISEBench. Test cases are in English and Chinese with 12 subcategories.
- Released
- October 2026
- Kind
- General visual questions
- Level
- University
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Last model added
- September 2025
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Large Multi-modality Models (LMMs) have made significant progress in visual understanding and generation, but still face challenges in visual editing, particularly in following complex instructions, preserving appearance consistency, and supporting flexible input formats. To study this gap, we introduce RISEBench, the first benchmark for evaluating Reasoning-Informed viSual Editing (RISE), and extend it to RISEBench++, a more comprehensive and fine-grained benchmark for this emerging task. RISEBench++ extends the taxonomy into a hierarchical scheme spanning six reasoning dimensions: Temporal, Causal, Spatial, Logical, and Counterfactual Reasoning, together with Hybrid Reasoning integrating multiple reasoning types across multi-turn edits. These dimensions are further decomposed into 12 subcategories and 65 fine-grained task types. We expand input formats to include multi-image conditioning and scale the benchmark to 1000 human-annotated test cases, released in English and Chinese. We also improve our evaluation framework, assessing Instruction Reasoning, Appearance Consistency, and Visual Plausibility with human judges and an LMM-as-a-judge approach for more reliable and calibrated judgements. Beyond benchmarking, we introduce RISE-Agent, a training-free agentic framework integrating reasoning-driven planning, tool-augmented execution, and verifier-guided refinement, outperforming most strong existing approaches across diverse RISE tasks. We evaluate 58 visual editing approaches, including 34 open-source models, 19 closed-source models, and 5 agentic methods. The results reveal substantial challenges in reasoning-based visual editing, with even the strongest evaluated approach, GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst, achieving only 56.6% accuracy. RISEBench++ highlights the limitations of contemporary editing models, provides insights, and indicates future directions for reasoning-aware visual editing.
GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst leads with 56.6% among models released by September 2025
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 newest model with a score here came out in September 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
- 56.6 GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst
- 54.6
Gemini 3 Pro Image Preview (nano-banana-pro)
- 50.8 Nano Banana 2
- 48.0 RISE-Agent (Ours)
- 47.8 GPT-Image-2
- 46.0 GPT-Image-2.5 Flare
- 45.2 Luma Uni-1
- 44.9 Qwen-Image-3.0
- 44.1
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image (nano-banana-2-lite)
- 41.7 FLUX.2 [max]
- 40.6 GPT-Image-1.5
- 37.7 FLUX.2 [pro]
- 36.8
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Preview (nano-banana)
- 34.8 HunyuanImage-3.5
- 33.5
Wan 2.7 Image Pro
- 31.8 GPT-Image-1
- 30.3 Qwen-Image-2.0
- 27.9
Seedream 4.5
- 26.7 Seedream 5.0
- 23.0
HunyuanImage 3.0 Instruct
- 17.1
Qwen-Image-Edit (2511)
- 16.3
Qwen-Image-2.1
- 16.3 FireRed-Image-Edit-1.0
- 15.8 FireRed-Image-Edit-1.1
- 14.8
Qwen-Image-Edit-2509
- 14.3
HiDream-O1-Image
- 14.1 FLUX.2 [dev]
- 12.9 FLUX.2 [klein] 9B
- 12.9 JoyAI-Image-Edit-Plus
- 12.0 SenseNova-U1-A3B-MoT-SFT
- 11.9 UniPic 3.0
- 11.4 BAGEL (w/ CoT)
- 11.3 SenseNova-U1-8B-MoT-SFT
- 10.8 FLUX.2 [klein] 4B
- 9.50 UniWorld-V2
- 4.50
BAGEL
- 4.50 OmniGen2
- 3.10 OmniGen
- 1.40 Emu2-Gen
- 1 GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst 56.6%
- 2
Gemini 3 Pro Image Preview (nano-banana-pro) 54.6%
- 3 Nano Banana 2 50.8%
- 4 RISE-Agent (Ours) 48%
- 5 GPT-Image-2 47.8%
- 6 GPT-Image-2.5 Flare 46%
- 7 Luma Uni-1 45.2%
- 8 Qwen-Image-3.0 44.9%
- 9
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image (nano-banana-2-lite) 44.1%
- 10 FLUX.2 [max] 41.7%
- 11 GPT-Image-1.5 40.6%
- 12 FLUX.2 [pro] 37.7%
- 13
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Preview (nano-banana) 36.8%
- 14 HunyuanImage-3.5 34.8%
- 15
Wan 2.7 Image Pro 33.5%
- 16 GPT-Image-1 31.8%
- 17 Qwen-Image-2.0 30.3%
- 18
Seedream 4.5 27.9%
- 19 Seedream 5.0 26.7%
- 20
HunyuanImage 3.0 Instruct 23%
- 21
Qwen-Image-Edit (2511) 17.1%
- 22
Qwen-Image-2.1 16.3%
- 23 FireRed-Image-Edit-1.0 16.3%
- 24 FireRed-Image-Edit-1.1 15.8%
- 25
Qwen-Image-Edit-2509 14.8%
- 26
HiDream-O1-Image 14.3%
- 27 FLUX.2 [dev] 14.1%
- 28 FLUX.2 [klein] 9B 12.9%
- 29 JoyAI-Image-Edit-Plus 12.9%
- 30 SenseNova-U1-A3B-MoT-SFT 12%
- 31 UniPic 3.0 11.9%
- 32 BAGEL (w/ CoT) 11.4%
- 33 SenseNova-U1-8B-MoT-SFT 11.3%
- 34 FLUX.2 [klein] 4B 10.8%
- 35 UniWorld-V2 9.50%
- 36
BAGEL 4.50%
- 37 OmniGen2 4.50%
- 38 OmniGen 3.10%
- 39 Emu2-Gen 1.40%
Source: Official RISEBench++ leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst | 56.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | | 54.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | Nano Banana 2 | 50.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | RISE-Agent (Ours) | 48% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | GPT-Image-2 | 47.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | GPT-Image-2.5 Flare | 46% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | Luma Uni-1 | 45.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 8 | Qwen-Image-3.0 | 44.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 9 | | 44.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | FLUX.2 [max] | 41.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | GPT-Image-1.5 | 40.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 12 | FLUX.2 [pro] | 37.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 13 | | 36.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | HunyuanImage-3.5 | 34.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 15 | | 33.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 16 | GPT-Image-1 | 31.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 17 | Qwen-Image-2.0 | 30.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 18 | | 27.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | Seedream 5.0 | 26.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 20 | | 23% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | | 17.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | | 16.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 23 | FireRed-Image-Edit-1.0 | 16.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 24 | FireRed-Image-Edit-1.1 | 15.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 25 | | 14.8% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | | 14.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 27 | FLUX.2 [dev] | 14.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 28 | FLUX.2 [klein] 9B | 12.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 29 | JoyAI-Image-Edit-Plus | 12.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 30 | SenseNova-U1-A3B-MoT-SFT | 12% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 31 | UniPic 3.0 | 11.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 32 | BAGEL (w/ CoT) | 11.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 33 | SenseNova-U1-8B-MoT-SFT | 11.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 34 | FLUX.2 [klein] 4B | 10.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 35 | UniWorld-V2 | 9.50% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 36 | | 4.50% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 37 | OmniGen2 | 4.50% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 38 | OmniGen | 3.10% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 39 | Emu2-Gen | 1.40% | Official 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 RISEBench++ 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.
Versions
More 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%