Benchmark Almanac

RISEBench

GPT-Image-1.5 51.4% leads
Only in system cards

Image editing models follow 360 instructions that need temporal, causal, spatial or logical reasoning. An LMM judge scores instruction reasoning, appearance consistency and visual plausibility.

The paper has 68 HF upvotes. OpenCompass hosts a RISEBench gallery space.

Released
April 2025
Kind
General visual questions
Level
University
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Last in a system card
May 2025
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 they still face challenges in General 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). RISEBench focuses on four key reasoning categories: Temporal, Causal, Spatial, and Logical Reasoning. We curate high-quality test cases for each category and propose an robust evaluation framework that assesses Instruction Reasoning, Appearance Consistency, and Visual Plausibility with both human judges and the LMM-as-a-judge approach. We conducted experiments evaluating nine prominent visual editing models, comprising both open-source and proprietary models. The evaluation results demonstrate that current models face significant challenges in reasoning-based editing tasks. Even the most powerful model evaluated, GPT-4o-Image, achieves an accuracy of merely 28.8%. RISEBench effectively highlights the limitations of contemporary editing models, provides valuable insights, and indicates potential future directions for the field of reasoning-aware visual editing. Our code and data have been released at https://github.com/PhoenixZ810/RISEBench.

Abstract of Envisioning Beyond the Pixels: Benchmarking Reasoning-Informed Visual Editing (arXiv:2504.02826, CC0)
19
Entries on its own leaderboard, 13 models we track
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

GPT-Image-1.5 leads with 51.4% 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.

GPT-Image-1.5 leads with 51.4%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

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:

  1. 1 GPT-Image-1.5 51.4%
  2. 2 GPT-Image-2 49.4%
  3. 3 Gemini 3 Pro Image Preview (nano-banana-pro) 48.3%
  4. 4 Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Preview (nano-banana) 33.9%
  5. 5 GPT-Image-1 30%
  6. 6 GPT-Image-1 mini 25.3%
  7. 7 Qwen-Image-Edit (2511) 19.4%
  8. 8 BAGEL (w/ CoT) 15.8%
  9. 9 Seedream 4.0 12.2%
  10. 10 Gemini 2.0 Flash Preview Image Generation 10%
  11. 11 Qwen-Image-Edit-2509 9.20%
  12. 12 BAGEL 5.80%
  13. 13 FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] 5.80%
  14. 14 Ovis-U1 2.80%
  15. 15 Step1X-Edit 1.90%
  16. 16 OmniGen 0.80%
  17. 17 EMU2 0.50%
  18. 18 FLUX.1-Canny 0%
  19. 19 HiDream-Edit 0%

Source: Official RISEBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-Image-1.5 51.4% Official leaderboard
2 GPT-Image-2 49.4% Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3 Pro Image Preview (nano-banana-pro) 48.3% Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Preview (nano-banana) 33.9% Official leaderboard
5 GPT-Image-1 30% Official leaderboard
6 GPT-Image-1 mini 25.3% Official leaderboard
7 Qwen-Image-Edit (2511) 19.4% Official leaderboard
8 BAGEL (w/ CoT) 15.8% Official leaderboard
9 Seedream 4.0 12.2% Official leaderboard
10 Gemini 2.0 Flash Preview Image Generation 10% Official leaderboard
11 Qwen-Image-Edit-2509 9.20% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
12 BAGEL 5.80% Official leaderboard
13 FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] 5.80% Official leaderboard
14 Ovis-U1 2.80% Official leaderboard
15 Step1X-Edit 1.90% Official leaderboard
16 OmniGen 0.80% Official leaderboard
17 EMU2 0.50% Official leaderboard
18 FLUX.1-Canny 0% Official leaderboard
19 HiDream-Edit 0% Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-Image-1.5 51.4% Official leaderboard
2 GPT-Image-2 49.4% Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3 Pro Image Preview (nano-banana-pro) 48.3% Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Preview (nano-banana) 33.9% Official leaderboard
5 GPT-Image-1 30% Official leaderboard
6 GPT-Image-1 mini 25.3% Official leaderboard
7 Qwen-Image-Edit (2511) 19.4% Official leaderboard
8 Seedream 4.0 12.2% Official leaderboard
9 BAGEL-7B-MoT 11.9% May 2025 Lab model card
10 Gemini 2.0 Flash Preview Image Generation 10% Official leaderboard
11 Qwen-Image-Edit-2509 9.20% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
12 BAGEL 5.80% Official leaderboard
13 FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] 5.80% Official leaderboard
14 Step1X-Edit 1.90% Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

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 Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) BAGEL-7B-MoT 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) BAGEL-7B-MoT

Sources: Official RISEBench leaderboard and 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.

One system card reports it

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
May 20, 2025 BAGEL-7B-MoT technical report 11.9 RISEBench Overall, BAGEL w/ Self-CoT, evaluated by GPT-4.1 (Table 9). Without CoT 6.1 Capabilities

Versions

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%