R-Bench (real-world robustness)
Models answer questions about images degraded by 33 kinds of real-world corruption, from capture to display. Scores compare distorted and reference images.
The set has 2,970 human-labeled question answer pairs. It is not the RBench video generation benchmark from Peking University.
In the authors’ words
The outstanding performance of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) has made them widely applied in vision-related tasks. However, various corruptions in the real world mean that images will not be as ideal as in simulations, presenting significant challenges for the practical application of LMMs. To address this issue, we introduce R-Bench, a benchmark focused on the **Real-world Robustness of LMMs**. Specifically, we: (a) model the complete link from user capture to LMMs reception, comprising 33 corruption dimensions, including 7 steps according to the corruption sequence, and 7 groups based on low-level attributes; (b) collect reference/distorted image dataset before/after corruption, including 2,970 question-answer pairs with human labeling; (c) propose comprehensive evaluation for absolute/relative robustness and benchmark 20 mainstream LMMs. Results show that while LMMs can correctly handle the original reference images, their performance is not stable when faced with distorted images, and there is a significant gap in robustness compared to the human visual system. We hope that R-Bench will inspire improving the robustness of LMMs, **extending them from experimental simulations to the real-world application**. Check https://q-future.github.io/R-Bench for details.
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Multiple choice
InternVL3.5-241B-A28B leads with 75.4%
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
InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 75.4%
- 2
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL 69.7%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 75.4% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 69.7% | Nov 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.
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.
2 system cards report it, from 2 labs
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 Nov 2025 | | 69.7 | R-Bench (dis), reasoning on (Table 3). Reasoning off 75.2 | Capabilities |
| 25 Aug 2025 | | 75.4 | R-Bench (dis) (Table 5) | Robustness |
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. 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%