Benchmark Almanac

VL-RewardBench

Gemini-1.5-Pro (2024-09-24) 62.5% tops its leaderboard Llama 3.2 90B 53.9% leads the models we track
Not in model cards

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.

Abstract of VL-RewardBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Vision-Language Generative Reward Models (arXiv:2411.17451, CC0)
16
Entries on its own leaderboard, 8 models we track

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:

  1. 1 Gemini-1.5-Pro (2024-09-24) 62.5%
  2. 2 GPT-4o (2024-08-06) 62.4%
  3. 3 Gemini-1.5-Flash (2024-09-24) 55.3%
  4. 4 Llama 3.2 90B 53.9%
  5. 5 Claude-3.5-Sonnet (2024-06-22) 53.6%
  6. 6 InternVL2-8B 45.2%
  7. 7 GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 44.8%
  8. 8 NVLM-D-72B 44.1%
  9. 9 Molmo-72B 43.7%
  10. 10 Qwen2-VL-72B 43%
  11. 11 Llama 3.2 11B 42.8%
  12. 12 Pixtral 12B 40.4%
  13. 13 Molmo-7B 39.7%
  14. 14 LLaVA-OneVision-7B-ov 36.5%
  15. 15 Phi-3.5-vision-instruct 35.7%
  16. 16 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct 33.9%

Source: Official VL-RewardBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
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 Llama 3.2 90B 53.9% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
5 Claude-3.5-Sonnet (2024-06-22) 53.6% Official leaderboard
6 InternVL2-8B 45.2% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 44.8% Official leaderboard
8 NVLM-D-72B 44.1% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
9 Molmo-72B 43.7% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
10 Qwen2-VL-72B 43% Official leaderboard
11 Llama 3.2 11B 42.8% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
12 Pixtral 12B 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.

Meta
Own leaderboard Not tested since Nov 2024

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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) Llama 3.2 90B InternVL2-8B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) Llama 3.2 90B InternVL2-8B

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

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%