Benchmark Almanac

ImgEdit-Bench

Nova 2 Omni Preview 4.12 Only in system cards

Image editing models carry out edit instructions such as add, remove, replace, style transfer and background change. A GPT-4.1 judge scores each result from 1 to 5.

The benchmark ships with the 1.2 million pair ImgEdit dataset and has basic, hard single-turn and multi-turn suites.

In the authors’ words

Recent advancements in generative models have enabled high-fidelity text-to-image generation. However, open-source image-editing models still lag behind their proprietary counterparts, primarily due to limited high-quality data and insufficient benchmarks. To overcome these limitations, we introduce ImgEdit, a large-scale, high-quality image-editing dataset comprising 1.2 million carefully curated edit pairs, which contain both novel and complex single-turn edits, as well as challenging multi-turn tasks. To ensure the data quality, we employ a multi-stage pipeline that integrates a cutting-edge vision-language model, a detection model, a segmentation model, alongside task-specific in-painting procedures and strict post-processing. ImgEdit surpasses existing datasets in both task novelty and data quality. Using ImgEdit, we train ImgEdit-E1, an editing model using Vision Language Model to process the reference image and editing prompt, which outperforms existing open-source models on multiple tasks, highlighting the value of ImgEdit and model design. For comprehensive evaluation, we introduce ImgEdit-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate image editing performance in terms of instruction adherence, editing quality, and detail preservation. It includes a basic testsuite, a challenging single-turn suite, and a dedicated multi-turn suite. We evaluate both open-source and proprietary models, as well as ImgEdit-E1, providing deep analysis and actionable insights into the current behavior of image-editing models. The source data are publicly available on https://github.com/PKU-YuanGroup/ImgEdit.

Abstract of ImgEdit: A Unified Image Editing Dataset and Benchmark (arXiv:2505.20275, CC0)
Made by Peking University (PKU-YuanGroup) Released May 2025 Image generation and editing All tasks public Last in a system card Dec 2025 Last model added Dec 2025
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
Scored
Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
Answers
Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Nova 2 Omni Preview leads with 4.12

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 Nova 2 Omni Preview 4.12
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Nova 2 Omni Preview 4.12 Dec 2025 Model card

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
4.12 2026 4.12 2026

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

One system card reports it

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
2 Dec 2025 Nova 2 Omni Preview technical report 4.12 ImgEdit Overall, GPT-4.1 judge on a 1 to 5 scale, results across reasoning and non-reasoning modes (Table 9) Capabilities

More in Vision

All 234 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. Kimi K3.1 Pro 84.1%
  • 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%
  • 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%
  • DocVQA In use Models answer 50,000 questions about 12,000 scanned document images by reading their text and layout. Scoring is ANLS, a string similarity to reference answers. Seed1.5-VL 96.9%