MTEdit-Bench
Harbor: pendingA benchmark for evaluating multi-turn image editing models on instruction following, content consistency, visual stability, and context use across up to 8 turns.
- Samples
- N/A
- Released
- 2026
- Scores
- 11
Reasoning-Informed Visual Editing Benchmark Plus Plus
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…
$ npm i -g lettokenburn-cli$ ltb bench info risebench
External harness. No Harbor adapter has been generated for this benchmark yet. `ltb bench info` prints the known links.
Runs happen on your machine with your own subscription; only the score summary is pushed. CLI docs
| Harness | Source | Confidence | Link | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst | 63.8 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| Nano Banana 2 | 60.4 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| Nano Banana Pro | 59.6 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| Luma Uni-1 | 57.5 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| GPT-Image-2.5 Flare | 57.1 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| GPT-Image-2 | 56.8 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| Nano Banana 2 Lite | 52.3 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| FLUX.2 Max | 49.8 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| GPT-Image-1.5 | 48.9 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| Qwen-Image-3.0 | 48.5 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| Nano Banana | 45.2 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| FLUX.2 Pro | 44.6 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
| HunyuanImage-3.5 | 42.8 | N/A | Independent | medium | Oct 8, 2026 | arxiv.org |
Every number links to where it was published. Low-confidence rows are muted and need per-cell verification.
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-image-1, 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.