VL-RewardBench
Vision-language reward models pick the better of two responses on general queries, hallucination detection and reasoning tasks.
Multimodal reward model cards often report it.
- Made by
- HKU and collaborators
- Released
- November 2024
- Kind
- General visual questions
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Multiple choice
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Llama 3.2 90B #178 on the capability index
- Last model added
- September 2024
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Vision-language generative reward models (VL-GenRMs) play a crucial role in aligning and evaluating multimodal AI systems, yet their own evaluation remains under-explored. Current assessment methods primarily rely on AI-annotated preference labels from traditional VL tasks, which can introduce biases and often fail to effectively challenge state-of-the-art models. To address these limitations, we introduce VL-RewardBench, a comprehensive benchmark spanning general multimodal queries, visual hallucination detection, and complex reasoning tasks. Through our AI-assisted annotation pipeline that combines sample selection with human verification, we curate 1,250 high-quality examples specifically designed to probe VL-GenRMs limitations. Comprehensive evaluation across 16 leading large vision-language models demonstrates VL-RewardBench's effectiveness as a challenging testbed, where even GPT-4o achieves only 65.4% accuracy, and state-of-the-art open-source models such as Qwen2-VL-72B, struggle to surpass random-guessing. Importantly, performance on VL-RewardBench strongly correlates (Pearson's r > 0.9) with MMMU-Pro accuracy using Best-of-N sampling with VL-GenRMs. Analysis experiments uncover three critical insights for improving VL-GenRMs: (i) models predominantly fail at basic visual perception tasks rather than reasoning tasks; (ii) inference-time scaling benefits vary dramatically by model capacity; and (iii) training VL-GenRMs to learn to judge substantially boosts judgment capability (+14.7% accuracy for a 7B VL-GenRM). We believe VL-RewardBench along with the experimental insights will become a valuable resource for advancing VL-GenRMs.
Gemini-1.5-Pro (2024-09-24) tops the leaderboard with 62.5%
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 Llama 3.2 90B, at 53.9%.
The newest model with a score here came out in September 2024, 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
- 62.5 Gemini-1.5-Pro (2024-09-24)
- 62.4 GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
- 55.3 Gemini-1.5-Flash (2024-09-24)
- 53.9
Llama 3.2 90B
- 53.6 Claude-3.5-Sonnet (2024-06-22)
- 45.2
InternVL2-8B
- 44.8 GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
- 44.1
NVLM-D-72B
- 43.7
Molmo-72B
- 43.0 Qwen2-VL-72B
- 42.8
Llama 3.2 11B
- 40.4
Pixtral 12B
- 39.7 Molmo-7B
- 36.5 LLaVA-OneVision-7B-ov
- 35.7 Phi-3.5-vision-instruct
- 33.9 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct
- 1 Gemini-1.5-Pro (2024-09-24) 62.5%
- 2 GPT-4o (2024-08-06) 62.4%
- 3 Gemini-1.5-Flash (2024-09-24) 55.3%
- 4
Llama 3.2 90B 53.9%
- 5 Claude-3.5-Sonnet (2024-06-22) 53.6%
- 6
InternVL2-8B 45.2%
- 7 GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 44.8%
- 8
NVLM-D-72B 44.1%
- 9
Molmo-72B 43.7%
- 10 Qwen2-VL-72B 43%
- 11
Llama 3.2 11B 42.8%
- 12
Pixtral 12B 40.4%
- 13 Molmo-7B 39.7%
- 14 LLaVA-OneVision-7B-ov 36.5%
- 15 Phi-3.5-vision-instruct 35.7%
- 16 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct 33.9%
Source: Official VL-RewardBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gemini-1.5-Pro (2024-09-24) | 62.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | GPT-4o (2024-08-06) | 62.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | Gemini-1.5-Flash (2024-09-24) | 55.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | | 53.9% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Claude-3.5-Sonnet (2024-06-22) | 53.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | | 45.2% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) | 44.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 8 | | 44.1% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 43.7% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | Qwen2-VL-72B | 43% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | | 42.8% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 40.4% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | Molmo-7B | 39.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | LLaVA-OneVision-7B-ov | 36.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 15 | Phi-3.5-vision-instruct | 35.7% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct | 33.9% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official VL-RewardBench 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 VL-RewardBench 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%