VLMsAreBiased
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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 15 more
- 1 GPT-6 Astra 84.1%
- 2 o4-mini Counterfactual images; + Debiased prompt 22.3%
- 3 o3 Counterfactual images; + Double-check 21%
- 4 Claude 3.7 Sonnet Counterfactual images; + Double-check 20.9%
- 5 Gemini-2.5 Pro [snapshot unspecified] Counterfactual images; + Double-check 20.2%
- 6 GPT-4.1 Counterfactual images; + Double-check 16%
Source: Official VLMsAreBiased leaderboard
- 1
Qwen 3.8 Max 88.3%
- 2 GPT-6 Astra 84.1%
- 3
Seed2.1 Pro 83.6%
- 4
Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 80.6%
- 5
Seed2.0 Pro 77.4%
- 6
Seed1.8 62%
- 7 o4-mini Counterfactual images; + Debiased prompt 22.3%
- 8 o3 Counterfactual images; + Double-check 21%
- 9 Claude 3.7 Sonnet Counterfactual images; + Double-check 20.9%
- 10 GPT-4.1 Counterfactual images; + Double-check 16%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official VLMsAreBiased leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 88.3% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | GPT-6 Astra | 84.1% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 83.6% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 80.6% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 77.4% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 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.
Source: Official VLMsAreBiased leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output 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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 3, 2026 | 88.3 | VLMsAreBiased | |
| Apr 28, 2026 | 80.6 | VLMBias | |
| Feb 14, 2026 | 77.4 | VLMsAreBiased | |
| Dec 18, 2025 | 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2026 | | 83.6 | VLMsAreBiased (Table 9) | Capabilities |
| Mar 21, 2026 | | 62 | VLMsAreBiased (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 77.4 | VLMsAreBiased (Table 8) | Capabilities |
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%