Benchmark Almanac

VLMsAreBiased

GPT-6 Astra 84.1% leads since September 2026
Qwen 3.8 Max 88.3% leads since August 2026
Fading

Models count or identify features in altered images of famous subjects, such as a logo with an added stripe, across 7 domains. Scoring is accuracy.

Made by
An Vo et al.
Released
May 2025
Kind
Spatial reasoning and counting
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
August 2026, dropped after it saturated
Last model added
September 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Large language models (LLMs) memorize a vast amount of prior knowledge from the Internet that helps them on downstream tasks but also may notoriously sway their outputs towards wrong or biased answers. In this work, we test how the knowledge about popular subjects hurt the accuracy of vision language models (VLMs) on standard, objective visual tasks of counting and identification. We find that state-of-the-art VLMs are strongly biased (e.g., unable to recognize the 4th stripe has been added to a 3-stripe Adidas logo) scoring an average of 17.05% accuracy in counting (e.g., counting stripes in an Adidas-like logo) across 7 diverse domains from animals, logos, chess, board games, optical illusions, to patterned grids. Removing image backgrounds nearly doubles accuracy (21.09 percentage points), revealing that contextual visual cues trigger these biased responses. Further analysis of VLMs' reasoning patterns shows that counting accuracy initially rises with thinking tokens, reaching ~40%, before declining with excessive reasoning. Our work presents an interesting failure mode in VLMs and a human-supervised automated framework for testing VLM biases. Code and data are available at: vlmsarebiased.github.io.

Abstract of Vision Language Models are Biased (arXiv:2505.23941, CC0)
6
Entries on its own leaderboard, 5 models we track
4
Launch posts list it, from 2 labs
3
System cards report it, from 1 lab

GPT-6 Astra leads with 84.1% among models released by September 2026

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.

Qwen 3.8 Max leads with 88.3%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

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 GPT-6 Astra 84.1%
  2. 2 o4-mini Counterfactual images; + Debiased prompt 22.3%
  3. 3 o3 Counterfactual images; + Double-check 21%
  4. 4 Claude 3.7 Sonnet Counterfactual images; + Double-check 20.9%
  5. 5 Gemini-2.5 Pro [snapshot unspecified] Counterfactual images; + Double-check 20.2%
  6. 6 GPT-4.1 Counterfactual images; + Double-check 16%

Source: Official VLMsAreBiased leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-6 Astra 84.1% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 o4-mini 22.3% Counterfactual images; + Debiased prompt Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
3 o3 21% Counterfactual images; + Double-check Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 20.9% Counterfactual images; + Double-check Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini-2.5 Pro [snapshot unspecified] 20.2% Counterfactual images; + Double-check Official leaderboard
6 GPT-4.1 16% Counterfactual images; + Double-check Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen 3.8 Max 88.3% Aug 2026 Lab model card
2 GPT-6 Astra 84.1% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Seed2.1 Pro 83.6% Jun 2026 Lab model card
4 Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 80.6% Apr 2026 Lab model card
5 Seed2.0 Pro 77.4% Feb 2026 Lab model card
6 Seed1.8 62% Dec 2025 Lab model card
7 o4-mini 22.3% Counterfactual images; + Debiased prompt Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
8 o3 21% Counterfactual images; + Double-check Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 20.9% Counterfactual images; + Double-check Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-4.1 16% Counterfactual images; + Double-check Apr 2025 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 5 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Scores at each effort level

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
o4-mini
Counterfact… Counterfact… Counterfact…
22.3%
o3
Counterfact… Counterfact… Counterfact…
21%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Counterfact… Counterfact… Counterfact…
20.9%
GPT-4.1
Counterfact… Counterfact… Counterfact…
16%

Source: Official VLMsAreBiased leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-6 Astra 84.1%
o4-mini Counterfactual images; + Debiased prompt 22.3%
o3 Counterfactual images; + Double-check 21%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet Counterfactual images; + Double-check 20.9%
o4-mini Counterfactual images; + Double-check 20.6%
o4-mini 20.3%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet Counterfactual images; + Debiased prompt 19.3%
o3 Counterfactual images; + Debiased prompt 18.9%
o3 18.5%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet 16.6%
GPT-4.1 Counterfactual images; + Double-check 16%
GPT-4.1 Counterfactual images; + Debiased prompt 14.4%
GPT-4.1 13.9%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet Counterfactual images; + In-image text 13.8%
o4-mini Counterfactual images; + In-image text 13.7%
o3 Counterfactual images; + In-image text 12.1%
GPT-4.1 Counterfactual images; + In-image text 11.2%

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2025 6 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 2025

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

OpenAI ByteDance Seed Qwen
Own leaderboard Not tested since Sep 2026
GPT-6 Astra 84.1%
Lab claims Passed 85% in Aug 2026, by Qwen 3.8 Max
Qwen 3.8 Max 88.3%

Sources: Official VLMsAreBiased leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Qwen’s own number for Qwen 3.8 Max passed 85% in August 2026

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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max Seed2.1 Pro Seed2.0 Pro Seed1.8 o4-mini 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max Seed2.0 Lite (0428)

Sources: Official VLMsAreBiased leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in August 2026

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

ByteDance Seed
Qwen
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Aug 3, 2026 Qwen 3.8 Max 88.3 VLMsAreBiased
Apr 28, 2026 Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 80.6 VLMBias
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro 77.4 VLMsAreBiased
Dec 18, 2025 Seed1.8 62 VLMsAreBiased

3 system cards report it, from 1 lab

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Jun 23, 2026 Seed2.1 Pro model card 83.6 VLMsAreBiased (Table 9) Capabilities
Mar 21, 2026 Seed1.8 model card 62 VLMsAreBiased (Table 2) Capabilities
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 77.4 VLMsAreBiased (Table 8) Capabilities

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%