Benchmark Almanac

RISEBench++

GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst 56.6% Not in model cards

Image editing models follow 1,000 bilingual instructions over six reasoning types, adding counterfactual and hybrid reasoning. It covers single-image, multi-image and multi-turn editing across 65 task types.

The makers call it an extension of RISEBench. Test cases are in English and Chinese with 12 subcategories.

In the authors’ words

Large Multi-modality Models (LMMs) have made significant progress in visual understanding and generation, but still face challenges in visual editing, particularly in following complex instructions, preserving appearance consistency, and supporting flexible input formats. To study this gap, we introduce RISEBench, the first benchmark for evaluating Reasoning-Informed viSual Editing (RISE), and extend it to RISEBench++, a more comprehensive and fine-grained benchmark for this emerging task. RISEBench++ extends the taxonomy into a hierarchical scheme spanning six reasoning dimensions: Temporal, Causal, Spatial, Logical, and Counterfactual Reasoning, together with Hybrid Reasoning integrating multiple reasoning types across multi-turn edits. These dimensions are further decomposed into 12 subcategories and 65 fine-grained task types. We expand input formats to include multi-image conditioning and scale the benchmark to 1000 human-annotated test cases, released in English and Chinese. We also improve our evaluation framework, assessing Instruction Reasoning, Appearance Consistency, and Visual Plausibility with human judges and an LMM-as-a-judge approach for more reliable and calibrated judgements. Beyond benchmarking, we introduce RISE-Agent, a training-free agentic framework integrating reasoning-driven planning, tool-augmented execution, and verifier-guided refinement, outperforming most strong existing approaches across diverse RISE tasks. We evaluate 58 visual editing approaches, including 34 open-source models, 19 closed-source models, and 5 agentic methods. The results reveal substantial challenges in reasoning-based visual editing, with even the strongest evaluated approach, GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst, achieving only 56.6% accuracy. RISEBench++ highlights the limitations of contemporary editing models, provides insights, and indicates future directions for reasoning-aware visual editing.

Abstract of Reasoning-Informed Visual Editing (arXiv:2610.12343, CC0)
Made by VisionXLab (Shanghai Jiao Tong University) and collaborators Released Oct 2026 General visual questions All tasks public Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
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.
39
Entries on its own leaderboard, 20 models we track

GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst leads with 56.6%

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

  1. 1 GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst 56.6%
  2. 2 Gemini 3 Pro Image Preview (nano-banana-pro) 54.6%
  3. 3 Nano Banana 2 50.8%
  4. 4 RISE-Agent (Ours) 48%
  5. 5 GPT-Image-2 47.8%
  6. 6 GPT-Image-2.5 Flare 46%
  7. 7 Luma Uni-1 45.2%
  8. 8 Qwen-Image-3.0 44.9%
  9. 9 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image (nano-banana-2-lite) 44.1%
  10. 10 FLUX.2 [max] 41.7%
  11. 11 GPT-Image-1.5 40.6%
  12. 12 FLUX.2 [pro] 37.7%
  13. 13 Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Preview (nano-banana) 36.8%
  14. 14 HunyuanImage-3.5 34.8%
  15. 15 Wan 2.7 Image Pro 33.5%
  16. 16 GPT-Image-1 31.8%
  17. 17 Qwen-Image-2.0 30.3%
  18. 18 Seedream 4.5 27.9%
  19. 19 Seedream 5.0 26.7%
  20. 20 HunyuanImage 3.0 Instruct 23%
  21. 21 Qwen-Image-Edit (2511) 17.1%
  22. 22 Qwen-Image-2.1 16.3%
  23. 23 FireRed-Image-Edit-1.0 16.3%
  24. 24 FireRed-Image-Edit-1.1 15.8%
  25. 25 Qwen-Image-Edit-2509 14.8%
  26. 26 HiDream-O1-Image 14.3%
  27. 27 FLUX.2 [dev] 14.1%
  28. 28 FLUX.2 [klein] 9B 12.9%
  29. 29 JoyAI-Image-Edit-Plus 12.9%
  30. 30 SenseNova-U1-A3B-MoT-SFT 12%
  31. 31 UniPic 3.0 11.9%
  32. 32 BAGEL (w/ CoT) 11.4%
  33. 33 SenseNova-U1-8B-MoT-SFT 11.3%
  34. 34 FLUX.2 [klein] 4B 10.8%
  35. 35 UniWorld-V2 9.50%
  36. 36 BAGEL 4.50%
  37. 37 OmniGen2 4.50%
  38. 38 OmniGen 3.10%
  39. 39 Emu2-Gen 1.40%
#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst 56.6% Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3 Pro Image Preview (nano-banana-pro) 54.6% Official leaderboard
3 Nano Banana 2 50.8% Official leaderboard
4 RISE-Agent (Ours) 48% Official leaderboard
5 GPT-Image-2 47.8% Official leaderboard
6 GPT-Image-2.5 Flare 46% Official leaderboard
7 Luma Uni-1 45.2% Official leaderboard
8 Qwen-Image-3.0 44.9% Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image (nano-banana-2-lite) 44.1% Official leaderboard
10 FLUX.2 [max] 41.7% Official leaderboard
11 GPT-Image-1.5 40.6% Official leaderboard
12 FLUX.2 [pro] 37.7% Official leaderboard
13 Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Preview (nano-banana) 36.8% Official leaderboard
14 HunyuanImage-3.5 34.8% Official leaderboard
15 Wan 2.7 Image Pro 33.5% Official leaderboard
16 GPT-Image-1 31.8% Official leaderboard
17 Qwen-Image-2.0 30.3% Official leaderboard
18 Seedream 4.5 27.9% Official leaderboard
19 Seedream 5.0 26.7% Official leaderboard
20 HunyuanImage 3.0 Instruct 23% Official leaderboard
21 Qwen-Image-Edit (2511) 17.1% Official leaderboard
22 Qwen-Image-2.1 16.3% Official leaderboard
23 FireRed-Image-Edit-1.0 16.3% Official leaderboard
24 FireRed-Image-Edit-1.1 15.8% Official leaderboard
25 Qwen-Image-Edit-2509 14.8% Official leaderboard
26 HiDream-O1-Image 14.3% Official leaderboard
27 FLUX.2 [dev] 14.1% Official leaderboard
28 FLUX.2 [klein] 9B 12.9% Official leaderboard
29 JoyAI-Image-Edit-Plus 12.9% Official leaderboard
30 SenseNova-U1-A3B-MoT-SFT 12% Official leaderboard
31 UniPic 3.0 11.9% Official leaderboard
32 BAGEL (w/ CoT) 11.4% Official leaderboard
33 SenseNova-U1-8B-MoT-SFT 11.3% Official leaderboard
34 FLUX.2 [klein] 4B 10.8% Official leaderboard
35 UniWorld-V2 9.50% Official leaderboard
36 BAGEL 4.50% Official leaderboard
37 OmniGen2 4.50% Official leaderboard
38 OmniGen 3.10% Official leaderboard
39 Emu2-Gen 1.40% Official leaderboard

Scores over time

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

No dated values yet.

No lab model card reports it yet

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

Versions

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%