RoboRewardBench
Vision-language models act as reward models on real robot videos from Open X-Embodiment and RoboArena, judging task success and partial progress. Counterfactual relabeling adds calibrated failures and near misses.
Released with the RoboReward 4B and 8B reward models. Open and proprietary VLMs were evaluated, and none excelled across tasks. LLM-as-a-Verifier later reported state of the art on it.
- Made by
- Stanford (CRFM HELM, Percy Liang) + collaborators
- Released
- January 2026
- Kind
- Real robots
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Short answer
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
- Last model added
- April 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
A well-designed reward is critical for effective reinforcement learning-based policy improvement. In real-world robotics, obtaining such rewards typically requires either labor-intensive human labeling or brittle, handcrafted objectives. Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown promise as automatic reward models, yet their effectiveness on real robot tasks is poorly understood. In this work, we aim to close this gap by introducing (1) RoboReward, a robotics reward dataset and benchmark built on large-scale real-robot corpora from Open X-Embodiment (OXE) and RoboArena, and (2) vision-language reward models trained on this dataset (RoboReward 4B/8B). Because OXE is success-heavy and lacks failure examples, we propose a negative examples data augmentation pipeline that generates calibrated negative and near-misses via counterfactual relabeling of successful episodes and temporal clipping to create partial-progress outcomes from the same videos. Using this framework, we build a large training and evaluation dataset spanning diverse tasks and embodiments to test whether state-of-the-art VLMs can reliably provide rewards for robot learning. Our evaluation of open and proprietary VLMs finds that no model excels across tasks, highlighting substantial room for improvement. We then train general-purpose 4B- and 8B-parameter models that outperform much larger VLMs in assigning rewards for short-horizon robotic tasks. Finally, we deploy the 8B model in real-robot reinforcement learning and find that it improves policy learning over Gemini Robotics-ER 1.5 while narrowing the gap to RL training with human-provided rewards. We release the full dataset, trained reward models, and evaluation suite on our website to advance the development of general-purpose reward models in robotics: https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/robo-reward-bench (project website).
gpt-5.5-2026-04-23-xhigh-reasoning-effort tops the leaderboard with 0.63
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 GPT-5.5, at 0.66.
The newest model with a score here came out in April 2026, 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 15 more
- 1 gpt-5.5-2026-04-23-xhigh-reasoning-effort 0.63
- 2 GPT-5.5 0.66
- 3 qwen3-vl-8b-instruct-robo-reward 0.66
- 4 GPT-5 mini 0.69
- 5 GPT-5 0.81
- 6 qwen3-vl-4b-instruct-robo-reward 0.85
- 7
Gemini 3 Pro 0.85
- 8 GPT-5.2 0.89
- 9
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct 0.89
- 10 GPT-5.1 0.90
- 11
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 0.90
- 12
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct 0.90
- 13
gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 0.91
- 14
Gemini 3 Flash 0.92
- 15
Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 0.93
- 16
Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 0.94
- 17
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Sep 2025 0.99
- 18
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 0.99
- 19
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct 1.03
- 20
Qwen2.5-VL-32B 1.14
- 21
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 1.17
- 22
Llama 4 Maverick 1.27
- 23 GPT-5 nano 1.30
- 24
Llama 4 Scout 1.49
- 25
Qwen2.5-VL-3B 1.61
Source: Official RoboRewardBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | gpt-5.5-2026-04-23-xhigh-reasoning-effort | 0.63 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | GPT-5.5 | 0.66 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | qwen3-vl-8b-instruct-robo-reward | 0.66 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | GPT-5 mini | 0.69 | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | GPT-5 | 0.81 | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | qwen3-vl-4b-instruct-robo-reward | 0.85 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | | 0.85 | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | GPT-5.2 | 0.89 | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 0.89 | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | GPT-5.1 | 0.90 | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 0.90 | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 0.90 | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 0.91 | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 0.92 | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 0.93 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 0.94 | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 0.99 | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 0.99 | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 1.03 | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 1.14 | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | | 1.17 | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | | 1.27 | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | GPT-5 nano | 1.30 | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 1.49 | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 1.61 | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in January 2026
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official RoboRewardBench 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 RoboRewardBench 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%