RoTA-Bench
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.
- Made by
- MAC-AutoML (Xiamen University)
- 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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 12 more
- 1 Pose greedy Full 100-task test; paper results 100%
- 2 IoU greedy Full 100-task test; paper results 39%
- 3 GPT-5.6 Sol Full 100-task test; paper results 17%
- 4
Gemini 3.6 Flash Full 100-task test; paper results 10%
- 5 GPT-6 Astra Full 100-task test; paper results 10%
- 6 GPT-5.6 Terra Full 100-task test; paper results 8.00%
- 7 GPT-5.6 Luna Full 100-task test; paper results 4.00%
- 8 Random + IoU rollback Full 100-task test; paper results 0.70%
- 9 SpatioLM-InternVL3.5 Full 100-task test; paper results 0%
- 10 Uniform random Full 100-task test; paper results 0%
- 11
Qwen3.7-Plus Full 100-task test; paper results 0%
- 12 Claude Sonnet 5 Full 100-task test; paper results 0%
- 13 Claude Opus 5 Full 100-task test; paper results 0%
Source: Official RoTA-Bench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | | 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 | | 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.
| Model | Setting | Success rate | Mean API cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.6 Sol | Full 100-task test; paper results | 17% | $1.7 |
| | 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 |
| | 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.
Source: Official RoTA-Bench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output 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 | |
| | 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 | |
| | 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.
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.
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
- 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%