Benchmark Almanac

RoboRewardBench

gpt-5.5-2026-04-23-xhigh-reasoning-effort 0.63 tops its leaderboard GPT-5.5 0.66 leads the models we track Not in model cards

Vision-language models act as reward models on real robot videos from Open X-Embodiment and RoboArena, judging task success and partial progress. Counterfactual relabeling adds calibrated failures and near misses.

Released with the RoboReward 4B and 8B reward models. Open and proprietary VLMs were evaluated, and none excelled across tasks. LLM-as-a-Verifier later reported state of the art on it.

In the authors’ words

A well-designed reward is critical for effective reinforcement learning-based policy improvement. In real-world robotics, obtaining such rewards typically requires either labor-intensive human labeling or brittle, handcrafted objectives. Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown promise as automatic reward models, yet their effectiveness on real robot tasks is poorly understood. In this work, we aim to close this gap by introducing (1) RoboReward, a robotics reward dataset and benchmark built on large-scale real-robot corpora from Open X-Embodiment (OXE) and RoboArena, and (2) vision-language reward models trained on this dataset (RoboReward 4B/8B). Because OXE is success-heavy and lacks failure examples, we propose a negative examples data augmentation pipeline that generates calibrated negative and near-misses via counterfactual relabeling of successful episodes and temporal clipping to create partial-progress outcomes from the same videos. Using this framework, we build a large training and evaluation dataset spanning diverse tasks and embodiments to test whether state-of-the-art VLMs can reliably provide rewards for robot learning. Our evaluation of open and proprietary VLMs finds that no model excels across tasks, highlighting substantial room for improvement. We then train general-purpose 4B- and 8B-parameter models that outperform much larger VLMs in assigning rewards for short-horizon robotic tasks. Finally, we deploy the 8B model in real-robot reinforcement learning and find that it improves policy learning over Gemini Robotics-ER 1.5 while narrowing the gap to RL training with human-provided rewards. We release the full dataset, trained reward models, and evaluation suite on our website to advance the development of general-purpose reward models in robotics: https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/robo-reward-bench (project website).

Abstract of RoboReward: General-Purpose Vision-Language Reward Models for Robotics (arXiv:2601.00675, CC0)
Made by Stanford (CRFM HELM , Percy Liang) + collaborators Released Jan 2026 Real robots All tasks public Last model added Apr 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
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
Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
25
Entries on its own leaderboard, 19 models we track

gpt-5.5-2026-04-23-xhigh-reasoning-effort tops the leaderboard with 0.63

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. The best model we track is GPT-5.5, at 0.66.

The newest model with a score here came out in Apr 2026, 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-5.5-2026-04-23-xhigh-reasoning-effort 0.63
  2. 2 GPT-5.5 0.66
  3. 3 qwen3-vl-8b-instruct-robo-reward 0.66
  4. 4 GPT-5 mini 0.69
  5. 5 GPT-5 0.81
  6. 6 qwen3-vl-4b-instruct-robo-reward 0.85
  7. 7 Gemini 3 Pro 0.85
  8. 8 GPT-5.2 0.89
  9. 9 qwen3-vl-8b-instruct 0.89
  10. 10 GPT-5.1 0.90
  11. 11 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 0.90
  12. 12 qwen3-vl-30b-a3b-instruct 0.90
  13. 13 gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 0.91
  14. 14 Gemini 3 Flash 0.92
  15. 15 Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 0.93
  16. 16 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 0.94
  17. 17 Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Sep 2025 0.99
  18. 18 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 0.99
  19. 19 qwen3-vl-4b-instruct 1.03
  20. 20 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 1.14
  21. 21 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 1.17
  22. 22 Llama 4 Maverick 1.27
  23. 23 GPT-5 nano 1.30
  24. 24 Llama 4 Scout 1.49
  25. 25 Qwen2.5-VL-3B 1.61
#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 gpt-5.5-2026-04-23-xhigh-reasoning-effort 0.63 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.5 0.66 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
3 qwen3-vl-8b-instruct-robo-reward 0.66 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5 mini 0.69 Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-5 0.81 Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
6 qwen3-vl-4b-instruct-robo-reward 0.85 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3 Pro 0.85 Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
8 GPT-5.2 0.89 Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
9 qwen3-vl-8b-instruct 0.89 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-5.1 0.90 Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 0.90 Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
12 qwen3-vl-30b-a3b-instruct 0.90 Official leaderboard
13 gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 0.91 Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Gemini 3 Flash 0.92 Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 0.93 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 0.94 Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Sep 2025 0.99 Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 0.99 Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
19 qwen3-vl-4b-instruct 1.03 Official leaderboard
20 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 1.14 Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
21 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 1.17 Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
22 Llama 4 Maverick 1.27 Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
23 GPT-5 nano 1.30 Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
24 Llama 4 Scout 1.49 Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
25 Qwen2.5-VL-3B 1.61 Jan 2025 Official leaderboard

2 models have held number one since its release in Jan 2026

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

OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since Apr 2026
GPT-5.5 0.66

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
0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2025 2026 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2025 2026

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.

More in Robotics

All 86 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%
  • RoboLab In use Zero-shot DROID Franka policies in Isaac Lab on 120 tabletop tasks at three instruction levels, 10 episodes each. Success rate. GR00T N1.7 8.58%
  • 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%
  • 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%
  • LIBERO Fading Simulated Franka tabletop tasks in four 10-task suites. Policies fine-tuned on 50 demos per task. Success rate over ~50 trials. MolmoAct 2 97.2%