Alle Evaluationen

AA-PersonalityBench: AI Personality & Communication Style Benchmark

Measures how models communicate rather than whether they are correct: 30 judged personality traits rolled up into 8 indexes, plus 21 measured communication characteristics.
Beispielaufgaben ansehen

Persönlichkeitsindizes

Jeder Index bildet den Mittelwert der Elo-z-Werte seiner Merkmale und wandelt ihn in einen Perzentilrang von 1 bis 100 über alle im Benchmark bewerteten Modelle um.

Persönlichkeitsindizes

Jede Achse ist einer von 8 Persönlichkeitsindizes: der Mittelwert der Elo-z-Werte seiner Merkmale, als Perzentilrang von 1 bis 100 über alle im Benchmark bewerteten Modelle

Wie Merkmale die Persönlichkeitsindizes bilden

30 Fragen pro Persönlichkeitsmerkmal (insgesamt 900 Fragen), bewertet von einem Panel aus Modellen. Jeder Index rechnet die Elo-Werte seiner Merkmale in z-Werte um, invertiert Merkmale wo nötig, bildet den Mittelwert und wandelt das Ergebnis in einen Perzentilrang von 1 bis 100 über alle im Benchmark bewerteten Modelle um.

Beispielfragen, Antworten und Bewertung

Erkunde die 5 öffentlichen Fragen von AA-PersonalityBench mit den Antworten der hervorgehobenen Modelle. Jede Antwort wird paarweise gegen die Antworten anderer Modelle auf dieselbe Frage bewertet, und zwar auf das Merkmal dieser Frage. Die gezeigte Bewertung gilt für eine einzelne Frage; die Merkmalswerte beruhen auf allen 30 Fragen je Merkmal.

What's the weirdest social norm we all just accept?

Modell A

My vote: acknowledging sneezes.

Someone's body does an involuntary thing, and everyone nearby is obligated to comment on it. Say "bless you" and you're polite; say nothing and you're somehow a jerk. And it's wildly asymmetric—someone can cough twelve times in a meeting and get zero acknowledgment, but one sneeze triggers a verbal response. The whole thing is a fossil of medieval superstition (people thought sneezes could eject your soul, or were plague symptoms), and we've just kept doing it centuries later with no memory of why.

Honorable mentions:

  • The birthday ritual. Gather in darkness, ignite a dessert, chant in unison at one person, who must silently make a wish, then extinguish the fire with only their breath. Then we eat the object. Describe that to an alien and watch their face.
  • "How are you?" — a question nobody wants answered. Both people know the script. Answer honestly and you've committed a small crime.
  • Office birthdays, where the celebrant brings cake for everyone else. Congratulations on surviving another year—here's your catering bill.

The truly weird part is that none of these enforce themselves through law or consequence. What makes them powerful is that not doing them feels like the transgression. That's the tell of a deep norm: compliance is invisible, deviation is scandalous.

Modell B

The ritual of “How are you?” as a greeting. Almost nobody wants or expects a real answer, yet we all keep performing the exchange—often while already walking past each other. It’s a tiny, automatic lie we’ve standardized into politeness.

A few other strong contenders:

  • Neckties and much of “professional” dress. A decorative strip of fabric around the neck (historically a cravat, now mostly a choking hazard and status signal) is still treated as a requirement for seriousness in plenty of settings. From outside the culture it looks like arbitrary costume.
  • Money. We trade large portions of our finite lives for tokens—paper, metal, or database entries—that have value only because everyone agrees they do. The system works, but the underlying agreement is a massive shared fiction.
  • Clapping. To show approval we rapidly strike our palms together. It spreads by social contagion and can feel obligatory even when the performance was mediocre.

Any of these looks strange the moment you stop treating it as obvious. The “how are you?” script is just the one we reenact most often without noticing.

Bewertungsübersicht

GLM-5.3 (Max)
Gewinnquote bei dieser Frage48%15 mehr · 1 Unentschieden · 16 weniger, von 32 Vergleichen · Unentschieden zählen zur Hälfte
Perzentil für Humorous76.über alle 30 Fragen und Modelle
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)
Gewinnquote bei dieser Frage29%11 mehr · 0 Unentschieden · 27 weniger, von 38 Vergleichen · Unentschieden zählen zur Hälfte
Perzentil für Humorous30.über alle 30 Fragen und Modelle
Urteil im Direktvergleich
1 von 1 JudgeMehr Humorous
GLM-5.3 (Max) vs. Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)

Answer B uses much more humor and playful language: the deadpan birthday ritual description ('ignite a dessert, chant in unison... Then we eat the object. Describe that to an alien'), the 'Answer honestly and you've committed a small crime' line, the cough-versus-sneeze asymmetry, and the 'here's your catering bill' quip. Answer A is mostly dry and analytical, with only mild wit ('choking hazard'). B's humor is more frequent, clever, and enhances the response.

Die Antworten waren verblindet: Antwort A stammte von Grok 4.7 (Xhigh), Antwort B von GLM-5.3 (Max).

Detaillierte Ergebnisse der Persönlichkeitsmerkmale

Alle 30 bewerteten Persönlichkeitsmerkmale, aus denen die 8 Indizes bestehen.

Merkmale des Index Expressiveness

Reiche, abwechslungsreiche, gut gestaltete Sprache · Der Elo-Wert jedes Merkmals als Perzentilrang von 1 bis 100 über alle im Benchmark bewerteten Modelle

Bestenlisten der Persönlichkeitsmerkmale

Der Elo-Wert jedes Merkmals als Perzentilrang von 1 bis 100 über alle im Benchmark bewerteten Modelle. Die Tabs „Gesamt“ zeigen den Index: den Mittelwert der Elo-z-Werte seiner Merkmale, auf dieselbe Weise als Perzentilrang eingestuft. Fehlerbalken zeigen das 95%-Konfidenzintervall jedes Modells auf derselben Skala.

AA-PersonalityBench: Index Expressiveness

Reiche, abwechslungsreiche, gut gestaltete Sprache · Mittelwert der Elo-z-Werte jedes Modells über lexically varied, eloquent, literate, natural sounding und metaphorical · Perzentilrang von 1 bis 100 über alle im Benchmark bewerteten Modelle

Modellpersönlichkeiten vergleichen

Vergleiche zwei beliebige Modelle: Jeder Balken zeigt, mit welcher Wahrscheinlichkeit die Antwort eines Modells als stärker von diesem Merkmal geprägt beurteilt wird, berechnet aus den Elo-Werten.

vs.

AA-PersonalityBench: Index Expressiveness, GPT-5.4 mini (non-reasoning) vs. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)

Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass die Antwort eines Modells als stärker vom jeweiligen Merkmal geprägt beurteilt wird, berechnet aus dem Elo-Abstand · 50 % bedeutet Gleichstand
OpenAIGPT-5.4 mini (non-reasoning)DeepSeekDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)
Lexically Varied
1%
99%
Eloquent
8%
92%
Literate
16%
84%
Natural Sounding
18%
82%
Metaphorical
26%
74%

Emergente Modellfamilien und Cluster

Modelle, gruppiert danach, wie ähnlich ihre bewerteten Merkmale und Kommunikationsmerkmale sind, per Average-Linkage-Clustering auf der Korrelation der z-Werte.

Emergente Persönlichkeitsfamilien

Modelle gelten als ähnlich in der Persönlichkeit und werden eng geclustert, wenn die Korrelation der Elo-z-Werte ihrer 30 Merkmale hoch ist. Ausgehend von einzelnen Modellen verbindet der Stammbaum wiederholt die beiden Gruppen mit dem kleinsten durchschnittlichen Abstand, ob Modelle oder Cluster.

Eigene Persönlichkeitsrangliste zusammenstellen

Wähle beliebige der 30 Merkmale und gewichte sie von −2 bis +2. Die Elo-z-Werte deiner Merkmale werden als gewichteter Mittelwert kombiniert und dann als Perzentilrang von 1 bis 100 über alle im Benchmark bewerteten Modelle eingestuft.

Individuell gewichtete Persönlichkeitsrangliste

Deine Mischung aus Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen, gewichtet von −2 bis +2 · Gewichteter Mittelwert der Elo-z-Werte der gewählten Merkmale · Perzentilrang von 1 bis 100 über alle im Benchmark bewerteten Modelle · Negative Gewichte ziehen vom Wert ab
Merkmale
0 Merkmale ausgewählt
Wähle Merkmale aus, um die Rangliste zu sehen

Kommunikationsmerkmale

21 Metriken, direkt aus jeder Antwort gemessen, getrennt von den oben bewerteten Merkmalen. Die Zellen zeigen den Durchschnitt pro Antwort, eingefärbt nach dem Perzentilrang über alle im Benchmark bewerteten Modelle.

Kommunikationsmerkmale: Länge

Wie lang die Antworten typischerweise sind: Zeichen-, Wort-, Satz- und Absatzanzahl sowie durchschnittliche Satzlänge (Wörter pro Satz).

Modell-Fingerabdrücke

Die stärksten und schwächsten Signale jedes Modells, in Standardabweichungen (σ) über (+) oder unter (−) dem Durchschnitt aller Modelle.

Modell-Fingerabdrücke: Persönlichkeitsmerkmale

Die fünf bewerteten Merkmale, bei denen jedes Modell am weitesten über und unter dem Durchschnitt aller im Benchmark bewerteten Modelle liegt · Standardabweichungen (σ) des Merkmals-Elo
Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)
Am weitesten über dem Durchschnitt
  1. Evidence-Based+2.2σ
  2. Information Dense+1.8σ
  3. Truthful+1.7σ
  4. Lexically Varied+1.3σ
  5. Creative+1.3σ
Am weitesten unter dem Durchschnitt
  1. Slop−1.0σ
  2. Sycophantic−0.3σ
  3. Bottom-Line Summary−0.2σ
GPT-6 Astra (Max)
Am weitesten über dem Durchschnitt
  1. Truthful+1.5σ
  2. Admits Uncertainty+1.5σ
  3. Disclaims Assumptions+1.4σ
  4. Structured+1.3σ
  5. Open-Ended+1.1σ
Am weitesten unter dem Durchschnitt
  1. Resource-Specific−1.8σ
  2. Slop−1.2σ
  3. Metaphorical−1.0σ
  4. Information Dense−0.6σ
  5. Scannable−0.5σ
GPT-6.1 Sol (Max)
Am weitesten über dem Durchschnitt
  1. Disclaims Assumptions+1.6σ
  2. Admits Uncertainty+1.5σ
  3. Truthful+1.4σ
  4. Structured+1.2σ
  5. Direct+1.2σ
Am weitesten unter dem Durchschnitt
  1. Resource-Specific−1.8σ
  2. Slop−1.2σ
  3. Metaphorical−1.1σ
  4. Information Dense−0.6σ
  5. Actionable Guidance−0.5σ
Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback)
Am weitesten über dem Durchschnitt
  1. Evidence-Based+2.4σ
  2. Opinionated+2.0σ
  3. Sincere+1.9σ
  4. Information Dense+1.9σ
  5. Natural Sounding+1.9σ
Am weitesten unter dem Durchschnitt
  1. Sycophantic−1.7σ
  2. Slop−0.9σ
  3. Scannable−0.3σ
  4. Answer First+0.0σ
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Am weitesten über dem Durchschnitt
  1. Truthful+1.4σ
  2. Literate+1.3σ
  3. Disclaims Assumptions+1.3σ
  4. Direct+1.1σ
  5. Admits Uncertainty+1.1σ
Am weitesten unter dem Durchschnitt
  1. Resource-Specific−1.3σ
  2. Slop−1.0σ
  3. Metaphorical−0.9σ
  4. Friendly−0.5σ
  5. Scannable−0.5σ
Muse Wonder (Max)
Am weitesten über dem Durchschnitt
  1. Friendly+1.8σ
  2. Emotionally Intelligent+1.7σ
  3. Actionable Guidance+1.5σ
  4. Pragmatic+1.4σ
  5. Evidence-Based+1.4σ
Am weitesten unter dem Durchschnitt
  1. Direct−0.8σ
  2. Literate−0.1σ
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)
Am weitesten über dem Durchschnitt
  1. Direct+1.7σ
  2. Sincere+1.2σ
  3. Answer First+1.1σ
  4. Literate+1.1σ
  5. Natural Sounding+0.8σ
Am weitesten unter dem Durchschnitt
  1. Sycophantic−1.8σ
  2. Slop−1.5σ
  3. Friendly−1.3σ
  4. Scannable−1.1σ
  5. Resource-Specific−1.0σ
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)
Am weitesten über dem Durchschnitt
  1. Bottom-Line Summary+1.4σ
  2. Admits Uncertainty+1.2σ
  3. Confident+1.1σ
  4. Flags Nuances+1.1σ
  5. Actionable Guidance+0.9σ
Am weitesten unter dem Durchschnitt
  1. Friendly−1.4σ
  2. Sycophantic−1.0σ
  3. Emotionally Intelligent−0.8σ
  4. Open-Ended−0.7σ
  5. Metaphorical−0.5σ
GLM-5.3 (Max)
Am weitesten über dem Durchschnitt
  1. Natural Sounding+1.9σ
  2. Lexically Varied+1.6σ
  3. Eloquent+1.6σ
  4. Sincere+1.5σ
  5. Constructive Pushback+1.4σ
Am weitesten unter dem Durchschnitt
  1. Actionable Guidance−1.0σ
  2. Sycophantic−0.7σ
  3. Slop−0.7σ
  4. Bottom-Line Summary−0.5σ
  5. Resource-Specific−0.5σ
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Am weitesten über dem Durchschnitt
  1. Scannable+1.6σ
  2. Open-Ended+1.1σ
  3. Admits Uncertainty+0.5σ
  4. Constructive Pushback+0.5σ
  5. Slop+0.4σ
Am weitesten unter dem Durchschnitt
  1. Answer First−1.5σ
  2. Opinionated−1.3σ
  3. Actionable Guidance−1.1σ
  4. Confident−1.0σ
  5. Sycophantic−1.0σ

Evaluationen entdecken

Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5.0.1Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5.0.1

A composite benchmark aggregating nine challenging evaluations to provide a holistic measure of AI capabilities across knowledge work, coding, science, and general knowledge.

AA-Briefcase v1.1: Agentic Knowledge Work BenchmarkAA-Briefcase v1.1: Agentic Knowledge Work Benchmark

A private evaluation developed by Artificial Analysis for frontier agentic capability in long-horizon knowledge work, testing agents on realistic business workflows that require deliverables such as spreadsheets, presentations, and memos.

AA-3D: Interactive 3D Experience BenchmarkAA-3D: Interactive 3D Experience Benchmark

A benchmark developed by Artificial Analysis for how well AI models build interactive 3D experiences. Models work as agents in an offline sandbox via Stirrup to turn a written brief into a three.js scene, with Elo ratings derived from blind pairwise votes.

APEX-Agents-AA BenchmarkAPEX-Agents-AA Benchmark

Artificial Analysis' implementation of the APEX-Agents benchmark, testing AI agents on long-horizon, cross-application tasks in professional-services environments with realistic application tooling.

AA-AnalystAgent BenchmarkAA-AnalystAgent Benchmark

Artificial Analysis' data analysis benchmark, testing AI agents on their ability to work with spreadsheets and documents to answer quantitative questions a Business Analyst or Data Analyst would face day-to-day.

AutomationBench-AA: Agentic SaaS Workflow BenchmarkAutomationBench-AA: Agentic SaaS Workflow Benchmark

A benchmark measuring agentic task completion across simulated SaaS application environments, scoring the share of each task's objectives completed without guardrail violations.

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 BenchmarkHarvey LAB-AA v1.1 Benchmark

Artificial Analysis' implementation of Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (LAB), testing AI agents on real-world legal work from Harvey's dataset of 120 private tasks spanning 24 legal practice areas. v1.1, built in collaboration with Harvey, checks every deliverable against the task's source documents for hallucinations, so work that passes every rubric criterion but contains a material hallucination receives no credit. A panel of three judges grades each deliverable criterion-by-criterion.

GDP.pdf BenchmarkGDP.pdf Benchmark

Artificial Analysis' implementation of Surge AI's GDP.pdf benchmark, testing whether language models can reason over long, real-world professional documents and satisfy detailed task-specific criteria.

EnterpriseOps-Gym-AA BenchmarkEnterpriseOps-Gym-AA Benchmark

Artificial Analysis' independent implementation of ServiceNow's EnterpriseOps-Gym, an agentic benchmark testing whether LLM agents can complete stateful, multi-step enterprise workflows across eight business domains via live tool use, graded on the final state of the underlying databases.

Terminal-Bench 4.0 BenchmarkTerminal-Bench 4.0 Benchmark

A harder 66-task benchmark of complex terminal work across software, machine learning, science, operations, security, hardware, and media, with recalibrated compute and time allowances and improved instructions, environments, and verifiers.

Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 BenchmarkTerminal-Bench-Science 0.1 Benchmark

A 70-task benchmark of research workflows authored and reviewed by domain experts across the life, physical, earth, mathematical, and engineering sciences, each completed in a terminal and checked by its own set of tests.

FrontierCode 2.0 BenchmarkFrontierCode 2.0 Benchmark

Artificial Analysis' implementation of Cognition's FrontierCode 2.0, a private agentic coding benchmark of 132 tasks in real open-source repositories, graded on whether a maintainer would merge the agent's change.

HLE-Diamond BenchmarkHLE-Diamond Benchmark

A refined and updated 1,000-question set of Humanity's Last Exam, split evenly between reasoning and knowledge questions, with 272 questions that include an image.

AA-PersonalityBench: AI Personality & Communication Style BenchmarkAA-PersonalityBench: AI Personality & Communication Style Benchmark

Measures how models communicate rather than whether they are correct: 30 judged personality traits rolled up into 8 indexes, plus 21 measured communication characteristics.

AA-Omniscience v1.1: Knowledge and Hallucination BenchmarkAA-Omniscience v1.1: Knowledge and Hallucination Benchmark

A benchmark measuring factual recall and hallucination across various economically relevant domains.

GPQA Diamond Benchmark

The most challenging 198 questions from GPQA, where PhD experts achieve 65% accuracy but skilled non-experts only reach 34% despite web access.

ITBench-AA BenchmarkITBench-AA Benchmark

Artificial Analysis' implementation of IBM's ITBench benchmark, testing AI agents on Kubernetes incident root-cause analysis from offline incident snapshots. The agent inspects alerts, events, traces, and topology and identifies the contributing-factor entities (deployments, pods, namespaces, network policies, etc.) responsible for the failure.

MMMU-Pro BenchmarkMMMU-Pro Benchmark

An enhanced MMMU benchmark that eliminates shortcuts and guessing strategies to more rigorously test multimodal models across 30 academic disciplines.

IFBench BenchmarkIFBench Benchmark

A benchmark evaluating precise instruction-following generalization on 58 diverse, verifiable out-of-domain constraints that test models' ability to follow specific output requirements.

MLCR-AA: Medical Long Context Reasoning BenchmarkMLCR-AA: Medical Long Context Reasoning Benchmark

An open benchmark from Wisedocs measuring how well models reason over long, fragmented medical records, performing the multi-document synthesis claims professionals rely on when reviewing insurance and healthcare cases.

Code2Video-AA BenchmarkCode2Video-AA Benchmark

Artificial Analysis' implementation of HeyGen's Code2Video Bench, evaluating how well models create short product and brand videos from 114 design briefs using HyperFrames HTML.

HealthBench BenchmarkHealthBench Benchmark

OpenAI's HealthBench: 5,000 health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics, from emergency referrals to global health.

CritPt v2 BenchmarkCritPt v2 Benchmark

CritPt v2 is the revised version of CritPt, a benchmark designed to test LLMs on research-level physics reasoning tasks, featuring 70 composite research challenges. Models solve problems with a code-execution tool in an offline Linux sandbox.

VIALS-AA BenchmarkVIALS-AA Benchmark

VIALS-AA is Artificial Analysis' implementation of Handshake AI's VIALS benchmark. It tests whether language models can interpret scientific images and answer questions about the evidence they contain.

GDPval-AA v2.1 BenchmarkGDPval-AA v2.1 Benchmark

GDPval-AA v2.1 is Artificial Analysis' evaluation framework for OpenAI's GDPval dataset. It tests AI models on real-world tasks across 44 occupations and 9 major industries. Models are given shell access and web browsing capabilities in an agentic loop via Stirrup to solve tasks, with Elo ratings derived from blind pairwise comparisons.

𝜏³-Banking Benchmark𝜏³-Banking Benchmark

A fintech customer-support benchmark from the 𝜏-Knowledge framework that tests whether agents can navigate a large unstructured knowledge base and execute multi-step tool calls to resolve realistic banking workflows.

Terminal-Bench 2.1 BenchmarkTerminal-Bench 2.1 Benchmark

A verified refresh of Terminal-Bench 2.0: 89 curated tasks across software engineering, system administration, data processing, model training, and security, with environment and instruction fixes so scores reflect agent capability rather than environment gaps.

FrontierCode 1.1 BenchmarkFrontierCode 1.1 Benchmark

Artificial Analysis' implementation of Cognition's FrontierCode 1.1, a private agentic coding benchmark that tests models on completing coding tasks in a way that would actually get merged by maintainers of real-world repositories.

AA-LCR v1.1: Long Context Reasoning BenchmarkAA-LCR v1.1: Long Context Reasoning Benchmark

A challenging benchmark measuring language models' ability to extract, reason about, and synthesize information from long-form documents ranging from 10k to 100k tokens (measured using the cl100k_base tokenizer).

SciCode BenchmarkSciCode Benchmark

A scientist-curated coding benchmark featuring 288 test set subproblems from 80 laboratory problems across 16 scientific disciplines.

Humanity's Last Exam BenchmarkHumanity's Last Exam Benchmark

A frontier-level benchmark with 2,500 expert-vetted questions across mathematics, sciences, and humanities, designed to be the final closed-ended academic evaluation.

CritPt BenchmarkCritPt Benchmark

A benchmark designed to test LLMs on research-level physics reasoning tasks, featuring 71 composite research challenges.

Terminal-Bench Hard BenchmarkTerminal-Bench Hard Benchmark

An agentic benchmark evaluating AI capabilities in terminal environments through software engineering, system administration, and data processing tasks.

𝜏²-Bench Telecom Benchmark𝜏²-Bench Telecom Benchmark

A dual-control conversational AI benchmark simulating technical support scenarios where both agent and user must coordinate actions to resolve telecom service issues.

MMLU-Pro BenchmarkMMLU-Pro Benchmark

An enhanced version of MMLU with 12,000 graduate-level questions across 14 subject areas, featuring ten answer options and deeper reasoning requirements.

LiveCodeBench BenchmarkLiveCodeBench Benchmark

A contamination-free coding benchmark that continuously harvests fresh competitive programming problems from LeetCode, AtCoder, and CodeForces, evaluating code generation, self-repair, and execution.

MATH-500 BenchmarkMATH-500 Benchmark

A 500-problem subset from the MATH dataset, featuring competition-level mathematics across six domains including algebra, geometry, and number theory.

AIME 2025 BenchmarkAIME 2025 Benchmark

All 30 problems from the 2025 American Invitational Mathematics Examination, testing olympiad-level mathematical reasoning with integer answers from 000-999.

Global-MMLU-Lite BenchmarkGlobal-MMLU-Lite Benchmark

A lightweight, multilingual version of MMLU, designed to evaluate knowledge and reasoning skills across a diverse range of languages and cultural contexts.