Benchmark Almanac

DriveBench Perception

GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 36.5 tops its leaderboard Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct 35.2 leads the models we track
Not in model cards

Models answer driving perception questions. The score is the published GPT evaluation score for this task family.

One track of DriveBench. The DriveBench record keeps lab scores that combine tracks.

Released
January 2025
Kind
Embodied reasoning
Level
Everyday
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Last model added
August 2024
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Recent advancements in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have sparked interest in their use for autonomous driving, particularly in generating interpretable driving decisions through natural language. However, the assumption that VLMs inherently provide visually grounded, reliable, and interpretable explanations for driving remains largely unexamined. To address this gap, we introduce DriveBench, a benchmark dataset designed to evaluate VLM reliability across 17 settings (clean, corrupted, and text-only inputs), encompassing 19,200 frames, 20,498 question-answer pairs, three question types, four mainstream driving tasks, and a total of 12 popular VLMs. Our findings reveal that VLMs often generate plausible responses derived from general knowledge or textual cues rather than true visual grounding, especially under degraded or missing visual inputs. This behavior, concealed by dataset imbalances and insufficient evaluation metrics, poses significant risks in safety-critical scenarios like autonomous driving. We further observe that VLMs struggle with multi-modal reasoning and display heightened sensitivity to input corruptions, leading to inconsistencies in performance. To address these challenges, we propose refined evaluation metrics that prioritize robust visual grounding and multi-modal understanding. Additionally, we highlight the potential of leveraging VLMs' awareness of corruptions to enhance their reliability, offering a roadmap for developing more trustworthy and interpretable decision-making systems in real-world autonomous driving contexts. The benchmark toolkit is publicly accessible.

Abstract of Are VLMs Ready for Autonomous Driving? An Empirical Study from the Reliability, Data, and Metric Perspectives (arXiv:2501.04003, CC0)
12
Entries on its own leaderboard, 3 models we track

GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) tops the leaderboard with 36.5

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. 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 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct, at 35.2.

The newest model with a score here came out in August 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 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) ( T.O. ) 36.5
  2. 2 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct ( T.O. ) 35.2
  3. 3 InternVL2-8B ( T.O. ) 33.6
  4. 4 Qwen2-VL 72B ( Clean ) 30.1
  5. 5 Phi-3 4.2B ( T.O. ) 28.3
  6. 6 Phi-3.5 4.2B ( T.O. ) 28.3
  7. 7 LLaVA-NeXT 7B ( Clean ) 24.1
  8. 8 LLaVA-v1.5-13B ( Corr. ) 23.4
  9. 9 LLaVA-1.5 7B ( Clean ) 23.2
  10. 10 Oryx 7B ( T.O. ) 18.5
  11. 11 DriveLM 7B ( Clean ) 16.9
  12. 12 Dolphins 7B ( T.O. ) 11.0

Source: Official DriveBench Perception leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 36.5 ( T.O. ) Official leaderboard
2 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct 35.2 ( T.O. ) Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
3 InternVL2-8B 33.6 ( T.O. ) Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
4 Qwen2-VL 72B 30.1 ( Clean ) Official leaderboard
5 Phi-3 4.2B 28.3 ( T.O. ) Official leaderboard
6 Phi-3.5 4.2B 28.3 ( T.O. ) Official leaderboard
7 LLaVA-NeXT 7B 24.1 ( Clean ) Official leaderboard
8 LLaVA-v1.5-13B 23.4 ( Corr. ) Oct 2023 Official leaderboard
9 LLaVA-1.5 7B 23.2 ( Clean ) Official leaderboard
10 Oryx 7B 18.5 ( T.O. ) Official leaderboard
11 DriveLM 7B 16.9 ( Clean ) Official leaderboard
12 Dolphins 7B 11.0 ( T.O. ) Official leaderboard

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
Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct
( Corr. ) ( T.O. )
35.2
InternVL2-8B
( Clean )
33.6
LLaVA-v1.5-13B
( T.O. )
23.4

Source: Official DriveBench Perception leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct ( T.O. ) 35.2
InternVL2-8B ( T.O. ) 33.6
InternVL2-8B ( Corr. ) 32.7
InternVL2-8B ( Clean ) 32.4
Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct ( Clean ) 29.0
Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct ( Corr. ) 27.9
LLaVA-v1.5-13B ( Corr. ) 23.4
LLaVA-v1.5-13B ( Clean ) 23.4
LLaVA-v1.5-13B ( T.O. ) 22.4

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Other labs
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jan 2025

Source: Official DriveBench Perception 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
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 2024 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 2024

Source: Official DriveBench Perception 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 Robotics

All 103 in Robotics
  • ERQA In use 400 multiple-choice visual questions from robot and egocentric footage on spatial, trajectory, action and state reasoning. Accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 78.5%
  • RoboDojo In use Generalist manipulation policies run 42 Isaac Sim tasks and 18 remote real-robot tasks. Scored by task score and success rate. GPT-6 Astra 29%
  • RoboLab In use Zero-shot DROID Franka policies in Isaac Lab on 120 tabletop tasks at three instruction levels, 10 episodes each. Success rate. FLUX 3 Action 42.9%
  • Progress classification (Google DeepMind) In use Models assign each frame of a robot video to one of five task-progress bands from 0 to 100 percent. Scored by accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 57.4%
  • Human proximity (Google DeepMind robotics) In use Models judge from robot camera views whether a human is within 1 meter, a spatial awareness check for safe robot behavior. Scored by accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 93%
  • Moment finding (Google DeepMind) In use Models find the moment in a robot video when an event happens. Scored by accuracy and mean absolute time distance in seconds. Gemini Robotics ER 2 91.3%