RISEBench
Image editing models follow 360 instructions that need temporal, causal, spatial or logical reasoning. An LMM judge scores instruction reasoning, appearance consistency and visual plausibility.
The paper has 68 HF upvotes. OpenCompass hosts a RISEBench gallery space.
In the authors’ words
Large Multi-modality Models (LMMs) have made significant progress in visual understanding and generation, but they still face challenges in General 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). RISEBench focuses on four key reasoning categories: Temporal, Causal, Spatial, and Logical Reasoning. We curate high-quality test cases for each category and propose an robust evaluation framework that assesses Instruction Reasoning, Appearance Consistency, and Visual Plausibility with both human judges and the LMM-as-a-judge approach. We conducted experiments evaluating nine prominent visual editing models, comprising both open-source and proprietary models. The evaluation results demonstrate that current models face significant challenges in reasoning-based editing tasks. Even the most powerful model evaluated, GPT-4o-Image, achieves an accuracy of merely 28.8%. RISEBench effectively highlights the limitations of contemporary editing models, provides valuable insights, and indicates potential future directions for the field of reasoning-aware visual editing. Our code and data have been released at https://github.com/PhoenixZ810/RISEBench.
- 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.
GPT-Image-1.5 leads with 51.4%
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.
- 51.4 GPT-Image-1.5
- 49.4 GPT-Image-2
- 48.3
Gemini 3 Pro Image Preview (nano-banana-pro)
- 33.9
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Preview (nano-banana)
- 30.0 GPT-Image-1
- 25.3 GPT-Image-1 mini
- 19.4
Qwen-Image-Edit (2511)
- 15.8 BAGEL (w/ CoT)
- 12.2
Seedream 4.0
- 10.0
Gemini 2.0 Flash Preview Image Generation
- 9.20 Qwen-Image-Edit-2509
- 5.80
BAGEL
- 5.80 FLUX.1 Kontext [dev]
- 2.80 Ovis-U1
- 1.90
Step1X-Edit
- 0.80 OmniGen
- 0.50 EMU2
- 0.0 FLUX.1-Canny
- 0.0 HiDream-Edit
- 1 GPT-Image-1.5 51.4%
- 2 GPT-Image-2 49.4%
- 3
Gemini 3 Pro Image Preview (nano-banana-pro) 48.3%
- 4
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Preview (nano-banana) 33.9%
- 5 GPT-Image-1 30%
- 6 GPT-Image-1 mini 25.3%
- 7
Qwen-Image-Edit (2511) 19.4%
- 8 BAGEL (w/ CoT) 15.8%
- 9
Seedream 4.0 12.2%
- 10
Gemini 2.0 Flash Preview Image Generation 10%
- 11 Qwen-Image-Edit-2509 9.20%
- 12
BAGEL 5.80%
- 13 FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] 5.80%
- 14 Ovis-U1 2.80%
- 15
Step1X-Edit 1.90%
- 16 OmniGen 0.80%
- 17 EMU2 0.50%
- 18 FLUX.1-Canny 0%
- 19 HiDream-Edit 0%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-Image-1.5 | 51.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | GPT-Image-2 | 49.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | | 48.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | | 33.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | GPT-Image-1 | 30% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | GPT-Image-1 mini | 25.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | | 19.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 8 | BAGEL (w/ CoT) | 15.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 9 | | 12.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | | 10% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | Qwen-Image-Edit-2509 | 9.20% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 12 | | 5.80% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 13 | FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] | 5.80% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | Ovis-U1 | 2.80% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 15 | | 1.90% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 16 | OmniGen | 0.80% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 17 | EMU2 | 0.50% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 18 | FLUX.1-Canny | 0% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | HiDream-Edit | 0% | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.
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.
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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 May 2025 | | 11.9 | RISEBench Overall, BAGEL w/ Self-CoT, evaluated by GPT-4.1 (Table 9). Without CoT 6.1 | Capabilities |
Versions
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%