Benchmark Almanac

RoTA-Bench

Pose greedy 100% tops its leaderboard GPT-5.6 Sol 17% leads the models we track
Not in model cards

Vision-language models rotate a 3D object step by step, using visual feedback, until its projection matches a target silhouette.

73 upvotes on Hugging Face papers.

Released
October 2026
Kind
Spatial reasoning and counting
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
Last model added
September 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Can vision-language models turn 2D observations into 3D understanding that supports precise action? This requires inferring object geometry, anticipating the effects of rotation, and refining actions through visual feedback. We introduce RoTA-Bench to evaluate these abilities through interactive 3D-to-2D projection alignment. Given a target silhouette, a model observes a rotated object and chooses successive rotations to recover the target projection within a limited action budget. Our automated pipeline constructs silhouette-preserving 3D objects from 2D icons and uses reversible initialization to guarantee solvability, yielding 674 tasks and a stratified 100-task test set. Empirically, we find that (i) a substantial human-model gap persists: GPT-5.6-Sol succeeds on only 17% of tasks, whereas 20 undergraduate participants collectively complete the test set four times with a 100% success rate; (ii) image-space and pose-space progress can diverge: at matched states, the model more often improves silhouette overlap while worsening pose alignment than humans (19.4% vs. 10.9%); and (iii) fine-grained control is sensitive to interaction history: removing it leaves 96.8% of the model's actions at a coarse 30-degree step size and sharply reduces observed task success. These findings highlight the challenge of converting visual evidence into precise 3D control, beyond recognizing or matching individual images.

Abstract of RoTA-Bench: Evaluating 3D Spatial Reasoning through Interactive Projection Alignment (arXiv:2610.17665, CC0)
13
Entries on its own leaderboard, 8 models we track

Pose greedy tops the leaderboard with 100%

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-5.6 Sol, at 17%.

The newest model with a score here came out in September 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Pose greedy Full 100-task test; paper results 100%
  2. 2 IoU greedy Full 100-task test; paper results 39%
  3. 3 GPT-5.6 Sol Full 100-task test; paper results 17%
  4. 4 Gemini 3.6 Flash Full 100-task test; paper results 10%
  5. 5 GPT-6 Astra Full 100-task test; paper results 10%
  6. 6 GPT-5.6 Terra Full 100-task test; paper results 8.00%
  7. 7 GPT-5.6 Luna Full 100-task test; paper results 4.00%
  8. 8 Random + IoU rollback Full 100-task test; paper results 0.70%
  9. 9 SpatioLM-InternVL3.5 Full 100-task test; paper results 0%
  10. 10 Uniform random Full 100-task test; paper results 0%
  11. 11 Qwen3.7-Plus Full 100-task test; paper results 0%
  12. 12 Claude Sonnet 5 Full 100-task test; paper results 0%
  13. 13 Claude Opus 5 Full 100-task test; paper results 0%

Source: Official RoTA-Bench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Pose greedy 100% Full 100-task test; paper results Official leaderboard
2 IoU greedy 39% Full 100-task test; paper results Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5.6 Sol 17% Full 100-task test; paper results Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 3.6 Flash 10% Full 100-task test; paper results Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-6 Astra 10% Full 100-task test; paper results Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.6 Terra 8.00% Full 100-task test; paper results Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-5.6 Luna 4.00% Full 100-task test; paper results Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Random + IoU rollback 0.70% Full 100-task test; paper results Official leaderboard
9 SpatioLM-InternVL3.5 0% Full 100-task test; paper results Official leaderboard
10 Uniform random 0% Full 100-task test; paper results Official leaderboard
11 Qwen3.7-Plus 0% Full 100-task test; paper results Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Claude Sonnet 5 0% Full 100-task test; paper results Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Claude Opus 5 0% Full 100-task test; paper results Jul 2026 Official leaderboard

Cost and performance

Full 100-task paper estimates at published uncached prices; internal agent workflows included. The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% $0.01$0.1$1$10 Mean API cost ($), log scale, lower is better Success rate Claude Sonnet 5 (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 0%, mean api cost $0.69 Claude Opus 5 (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 0%, mean api cost $1.03 GPT-6 Astra (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 10%, mean api cost $3.59 Qwen3.7-Plus (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 0%, mean api cost $0.06 GPT-5.6 Luna (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 4%, mean api cost $0.29 GPT-5.6 Sol (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 17%, mean api cost $1.7 GPT-5.6 Terra (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 8%, mean api cost $0.86 Gemini 3.6 Flash (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 10%, mean api cost $1.02 GPT-5.6 Sol (Full 100-task test; paper results)Gemini 3.6 Flash (Full 100-task test; paper results)GPT-5.6 Terra (Full 100-task test; paper results)GPT-5.6 Luna (Full 100-task test; paper results)Qwen3.7-Plus (Full 100-task test; paper results) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% $0.01$0.1$1$10 Mean API cost ($), log scale, lower is better Success rate Claude Sonnet 5 (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 0%, mean api cost $0.69 Claude Opus 5 (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 0%, mean api cost $1.03 GPT-6 Astra (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 10%, mean api cost $3.59 Qwen3.7-Plus (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 0%, mean api cost $0.06 GPT-5.6 Luna (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 4%, mean api cost $0.29 GPT-5.6 Sol (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 17%, mean api cost $1.7 GPT-5.6 Terra (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 8%, mean api cost $0.86 Gemini 3.6 Flash (Full 100-task test; paper results): Success rate 10%, mean api cost $1.02 GPT-5.6 Sol (Full 100-task test; paper results)Gemini 3.6 Flash (Full 100-task test; paper results)GPT-5.6 Terra (Full 100-task test; paper results)GPT-5.6 Luna (Full 100-task test; paper results)Qwen3.7-Plus (Full 100-task test; paper results)
ModelSettingSuccess rateMean API cost
GPT-5.6 Sol Full 100-task test; paper results 17% $1.7
Gemini 3.6 Flash Full 100-task test; paper results 10% $1.02
GPT-6 Astra Full 100-task test; paper results 10% $3.59
GPT-5.6 Terra Full 100-task test; paper results 8% $0.86
GPT-5.6 Luna Full 100-task test; paper results 4% $0.29
Qwen3.7-Plus Full 100-task test; paper results 0% $0.06
Claude Sonnet 5 Full 100-task test; paper results 0% $0.7
Claude Opus 5 Full 100-task test; paper results 0% $1.03

The best score, 17%, costs $1.70 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Qwen OpenAI Google DeepMind Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale GPT-5.6 Sol, Full 100-task test; paper results Gemini 3.6 Flash, Full 100-task test; paper results GPT-5.6 Terra, Full 100-task test; paper results GPT-5.6 Luna, Full 100-task test; paper results Qwen3.7-Plus, Full 100-task test; paper results 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale GPT-5.6 Sol, Full 100-task test; paper results Gemini 3.6 Flash, Full 100-task test; paper results

Source: Official RoTA-Bench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-5.6 Sol Full 100-task test; paper results 17% $1.70 8,538
GPT-5.6 Sol Full 100-task test; paper results ReAct 16% 10,249
Gemini 3.6 Flash Full 100-task test; paper results 10% $1.02 45,556
GPT-6 Astra Full 100-task test; paper results 10% $3.59
GPT-5.6 Terra Full 100-task test; paper results 8.00% $0.86 10,629
GPT-5.6 Luna Full 100-task test; paper results 4.00% $0.29 10,874
GPT-5.6 Sol Full 100-task test; paper results Magentic 2.00% 22,089
Qwen3.7-Plus Full 100-task test; paper results 0% $0.06 9,012
Claude Sonnet 5 Full 100-task test; paper results 0% $0.69 7,221
Claude Opus 5 Full 100-task test; paper results 0% $1.03 7,004

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

OpenAI
Own leaderboard 1 leader

Source: Official RoTA-Bench leaderboard

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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.6 Sol Qwen3.7-Plus 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.6 Sol Qwen3.7-Plus

Source: Official RoTA-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 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%