Alle Evaluationen

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 Benchmark Leaderboard

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.
Beispielaufgaben ansehen

Neu in v1.1

v1.1 ersetzt v1.0, und die Ergebnisse sind zwischen den Versionen nicht vergleichbar. Harveys Studien mit juristischen Fachleuten zeigten, dass Halluzinationen ein Hauptfaktor dafür sind, welche Ergebnisse Anwälte bevorzugen. Deshalb haben wir gemeinsam mit Harvey eine Halluzinationsprüfung in die Bewertung aufgenommen.

  • Harveys neuester privater Datensatz mit Verbesserungen an Aufgaben und Kriterien
  • Eine neue Halluzinationsprüfung jedes Ergebnisses anhand der Quelldokumente der Aufgabe; wesentliche Halluzinationen werden in der Bewertung bestraft
  • Bewerter auf GPT-6 Sol, Grok 4.7 und Claude Opus 5.5 aktualisiert. Wir fanden nur minimale Selbstbevorzugung und mitteln alle drei, um mögliche Verzerrungen abzuschwächen

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1

Muse Wonder Full (Max) erzielt bei Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 mit 13.1% das höchste Ergebnis, gefolgt von Muse Wonder (Max) mit einem Ergebnis von 10.0% und Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) mit einem Ergebnis von 9.4%

Ergebnis

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Halluzinationsgefilterte Vollbestehensquote

Durchschnitt über alle Aufgaben des Anteils der Bewertungsmodelle, die alle Bewertungskriterien als erfüllt werten; eine Aufgabe mit wesentlicher Halluzination zählt null · Unabhängig von Artificial Analysis gemessen
No publicly available API

Halluzinationen

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Halluzinationen pro Aufgabe

Upheld hallucination flags per task, split by severity · Material flags would mislead a reader on a substantive point, minor flags are real errors unlikely to affect the legal interpretation, and only material flags affect the headline score · Lower is better
No publicly available API

Halluzinationsgefilterte Beinahe-Bestehensquote

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Halluzinationsgefilterte Beinahe-Bestehensquote

Average over tasks of the share of the judge panel that missed 0, <=1 and <=2 criteria · Tasks with at least 1 material hallucination count at 0% · Higher is better
Nach verfehlten Kriterien sortieren
No publicly available API

Punktzahlvergleiche

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Halluzinationsgefilterte Vollbestehensquote vs. Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index

Die halluzinationsgefilterte Vollbestehensquote ist der durchschnittliche Anteil der Bewertungsmodelle, die alle Kriterien als erfüllt werten; eine Aufgabe mit wesentlicher Halluzination zählt null · Der Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index misst die allgemeine Leistungsfähigkeit über die gesamte Evaluierungssuite · Auf beiden Achsen ist höher besser
Most attractive quadrant

Kosten

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Kosten pro Aufgabe

Durchschnittliche Kosten pro Aufgabe (USD), aufgeschlüsselt nach Eingabe-, Cache-Treffer-, Cache-Schreib-, Reasoning- und Antwort-Token

Token-Nutzung

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Ausgabe-Token pro Aufgabe

Ausgabe-Token für eine Aufgabe, aufgeschlüsselt nach Reasoning- und Antwort-Token
No publicly available API

Geschwindigkeit

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Zeit pro Aufgabe

Weighted average decode time (minutes) per task; excludes TTFT and overhead time · Lower is better

Schritte

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Durchschnittliche Schritte pro Aufgabe

Average number of model turns per Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 task · Lower is better
No publicly available API

Wert nach Rechtsgebiet

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Halluzinationsgefilterte Vollbestehensquote nach Rechtsgebiet (normalisiert)

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: halluzinationsgefilterte Vollbestehensquote nach Rechtsgebiet · Fünf Aufgaben pro Rechtsgebiet · Die Werte werden je Rechtsgebiet über die angezeigten Modelle normalisiert; Grün steht für den höchsten und Rot für den niedrigsten Wert des Rechtsgebiets

Modellgröße (nur Modelle mit offenen Gewichten)

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Halluzinationsgefilterte Vollbestehensquote vs. Parameter insgesamt

Halluzinationsgefilterte Vollbestehensquote von Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 · Parametergröße (Milliarden) · Nur Modelle mit offenen Gewichten
Most attractive quadrant
Pareto line

Ergebnis vs. Veröffentlichungsdatum

Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Halluzinationsgefilterte Vollbestehensquote vs. Veröffentlichungsdatum

Most attractive region

Beispielaufgaben und Einreichungen

Entdecken Sie repräsentative Harvey LAB-Aufgaben aus dem öffentlichen Aufgabensatz, die Referenzdateien für jedes Modell und die erstellten Ergebnisse.

Mergers & Acquisitions

Anweisungen

Review the attached acquisition data room contracts and internal memo for change of control and assignment provisions, and prepare a comprehensive deal team report.

Output: coc-analysis-report.docx

Ergebnisse

Erwartete Ergebnisse des Modells

  • coc-analysis-report.docxA comprehensive deal team report analyzing change of control and assignment provisions across the target’s material contracts.

Referenzdateien

Dem Modell bereitgestellt

Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen
Öffnen

Modelleinreichungen

Von jedem Modell erstellte Ergebnisse

Claude Opus 5.5 (max with fallback) - coc-analysis-report.docx
Öffnen

Bestenliste

Ersteller
Name
Hallucination-Gated All-Pass Rate
Criterion Pass Rate
Wesentliche Halluzinationen pro Aufgabe
Kosten pro Aufgabe
Veröffentlichungsdatum
1
Meta logoMeta
Muse Wonder Full (Max)13.1%95.5%0.62-Okt. 2026
2
Meta logoMeta
Muse Wonder (Max)10.0%95.1%0.89$13.86Okt. 2026
3
SpaceXAI logoSpaceXAI
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)9.4%92.8%0.74$9.49Sept. 2026
4
Meta logoMeta
Muse Spark 1.3 (Max)8.9%96.0%1.68$4.21Sept. 2026
5
OpenAI logoOpenAI
GPT-6 Astra (Max)8.6%90.6%0.03$13.67Sept. 2026
6
OpenAI logoOpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol (Max)6.9%90.6%0.09$2.48Sept. 2026
7
Anthropic logoAnthropic
Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback)6.4%92.4%1.32$21.73Sept. 2026
8
Kimi logoKimi
Kimi K3 (Max)5.3%93.0%2.09$6.19Juli 2026
9
Anthropic logoAnthropic
Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)4.2%90.0%0.59$17.93Sept. 2026
10
OpenAI logoOpenAI
GPT-6 Sol (Max)3.6%86.9%0.07$3.33Sept. 2026
11
OpenAI logoOpenAI
GPT-6 Luna (Max)3.3%86.0%0.38$0.22Sept. 2026
12
Mistral logoMistral
Mistral Large 4 Preview3.1%93.0%2.11$2.54Okt. 2026
13
Anthropic logoAnthropic
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)2.8%92.1%1.03$14.03Sept. 2026
14
Anthropic logoAnthropic
Claude Haiku 5.5 (Xhigh)2.8%88.0%1.61$0.43Okt. 2026
15
DeepSeek logoDeepSeek
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max)1.7%92.5%2.58$0.59Sept. 2026

Evaluationen entdecken

Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3.2

A composite benchmark aggregating ten challenging evaluations to provide a holistic measure of AI capabilities across mathematics, science, coding, and reasoning.

Artificial Analysis Openness IndexArtificial Analysis Openness Index

A composite measure providing an industry standard to communicate model openness for users and developers.

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.

GDPval-AA v2.1 LeaderboardGDPval-AA v2.1 Leaderboard

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.

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 Benchmark LeaderboardAPEX-Agents-AA Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardAA-AnalystAgent Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardHarvey LAB-AA v1.1 Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardGDP.pdf Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardEnterpriseOps-Gym-AA Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardTerminal-Bench 4.0 Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardTerminal-Bench-Science 0.1 Benchmark Leaderboard

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 1.1 Benchmark LeaderboardFrontierCode 1.1 Benchmark Leaderboard

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.

Artificial Analysis Long Context Reasoning Benchmark LeaderboardArtificial Analysis Long Context Reasoning Benchmark Leaderboard

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).

AA-Omniscience: Knowledge and Hallucination BenchmarkAA-Omniscience: Knowledge and Hallucination Benchmark

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

SciCode Benchmark LeaderboardSciCode Benchmark Leaderboard

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

Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark LeaderboardHumanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardCritPt Benchmark Leaderboard

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

GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardITBench-AA Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardMMMU-Pro Benchmark Leaderboard

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

IFBench Benchmark LeaderboardIFBench Benchmark Leaderboard

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

Medical Long Context Reasoning (MLCR-AA)Medical Long Context Reasoning (MLCR-AA)

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.

𝜏³-Banking Benchmark Leaderboard𝜏³-Banking Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardTerminal-Bench 2.1 Benchmark Leaderboard

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.

Terminal-Bench Hard Benchmark LeaderboardTerminal-Bench Hard Benchmark Leaderboard

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

𝜏²-Bench Telecom Benchmark Leaderboard𝜏²-Bench Telecom Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardMMLU-Pro Benchmark Leaderboard

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

LiveCodeBench Benchmark LeaderboardLiveCodeBench Benchmark Leaderboard

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 Benchmark LeaderboardMATH-500 Benchmark Leaderboard

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

AIME 2025 Benchmark LeaderboardAIME 2025 Benchmark Leaderboard

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

Global-MMLU-Lite Benchmark LeaderboardGlobal-MMLU-Lite Benchmark Leaderboard

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