すべての評価

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.
タスク例を見る

パーソナリティ指数

各指数は構成特性のEloのzスコアの平均を取り、ベンチマークで評価したすべてのモデルにわたる1〜100のパーセンタイル順位にします。

パーソナリティ指数

各軸は8つのパーソナリティ指数の1つで、構成特性のEloのzスコアの平均を、ベンチマークで評価したすべてのモデルにわたる1〜100のパーセンタイル順位にしたもの

特性からパーソナリティ指数への集約

パーソナリティ特性ごとに30問(合計900問)を、モデルのパネルが判定します。各指数は構成特性のEloレーティングをzスコア化し、必要に応じて特性を反転し、平均を計算して、その結果をベンチマークで評価したすべてのモデルにわたる1〜100のパーセンタイル順位にします。

質問・回答・採点の例

公開されている5問のAA-PersonalityBenchの質問と、ハイライト表示されたモデルの回答をご覧ください。各回答は、同じ質問に対する他のモデルの回答と、その質問の特性についてペアで判定されます。ここに示す採点は1問分のものです。特性スコアは、特性ごとに30問すべてを使って算出します。

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

モデル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.

モデルB

Easily: blowing out birthday candles.

Think about what we're actually doing, step-by-step:

  1. Your friends turn off the lights and gather around you in a circle.
  2. They start chanting a song about you in unison.
  3. Someone brings you a cake with a bunch of small fires stuck in it.
  4. You're told to close your eyes, make a secret wish in your head — and if you tell anyone, the magic won't work.
  5. Then you blow your breath (and spit) all over the cake to put the fires out.
  6. Everyone claps like you just accomplished something incredible, and then they all happily eat the spit cake.

If you described that to an alien, they'd assume it was a cult ritual. We do it for 4-year-olds at pizza restaurants.

Runners-up for me:

"How are you?" It's not actually a question, it's a password. The only correct answer is "Good, you?" — "Good." Neither person learned anything. If you answer honestly — "Honestly, kind of anxious and my lower back hurts" — you're the weird one.

Clapping. We liked something, so we repeatedly smack our own hands together to make noise. The better we liked it, the harder and faster we hurt ourselves.

Neckties. A man in a t-shirt is casual. The same man with a colorful silk noose tightly knotted around his neck? Now he's professional and trustworthy.

We're a very strange species, we just all agreed not to notice.

採点の概要

GLM-5.3 (Max)
この質問での勝率48%32回の比較のうち、より強い15回 · 引き分け1回 · より弱い16回 · 引き分けは0.5勝として数えます
Humorousのパーセンタイル7630問すべてと全モデルにわたる値
Muse Wonder (Max)
この質問での勝率79%28回の比較のうち、より強い22回 · 引き分け0回 · より弱い6回 · 引き分けは0.5勝として数えます
Humorousのパーセンタイル9330問すべてと全モデルにわたる値
直接対決の判定
1つのジャッジのうち1つHumorousがより弱い
GLM-5.3 (Max) vs. Muse Wonder (Max)

Both answers use wry observational humor, but B is more consistently playful and funny. It has punchy comic lines like "spit cake," "cult ritual... 4-year-olds at pizza restaurants," "colorful silk noose," and "hurt ourselves," plus a comedic step-by-step list and a closing quip. A's humor is milder and more analytical, with a few good lines ("here's your catering bill," "committed a small crime") but a more explanatory tone overall.

回答のモデル名は伏せられていました。回答AはGLM-5.3 (Max)、回答BはMuse Wonder (Max)です。

パーソナリティ特性の詳細結果

8つの指数を構成する、判定対象の30のパーソナリティ特性すべて。

Expressiveness指数の特性

豊かで変化に富んだ、巧みな言葉遣い · 各特性のEloを、ベンチマークで評価したすべてのモデルにわたる1〜100のパーセンタイル順位にしたもの

パーソナリティ特性リーダーボード

各特性のEloを、ベンチマークで評価したすべてのモデルにわたる1〜100のパーセンタイル順位にしたものです。「総合」タブは指数、つまり構成特性のEloのzスコアの平均を同じ方法でパーセンタイル順位にしたものを示します。ひげは各モデルの95%信頼区間を同じスケールで示します。

AA-PersonalityBench: Expressiveness指数

豊かで変化に富んだ、巧みな言葉遣い · lexically varied、eloquent、literate、natural sounding、metaphoricalにわたる各モデルのEloのzスコアの平均 · ベンチマークで評価したすべてのモデルにわたる1〜100のパーセンタイル順位

モデルのパーソナリティを比較

任意の2つのモデルを比較します。各バーは、Eloに基づいて、一方のモデルの回答がその特性をより強く表していると判定される確率を示します。

vs

AA-PersonalityBench: Expressiveness指数、MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash

Eloの差から求めた、各モデルの回答が各特性をより強く表していると判定される確率 · 50%は互角
MiniMaxMiniMax-M3.1-FlashZ AIGLM-5.3-Flash
Lexically Varied
1%
99%
Eloquent
2%
98%
Natural Sounding
2%
98%
Metaphorical
4%
96%
Literate
32%
68%

創発的なモデルファミリーとクラスター

判定された特性とコミュニケーション特性がどれだけ似ているかでモデルをグループ化したものです。zスコア間の相関に群平均法によるクラスタリングを適用しています。

創発的パーソナリティファミリー

30の特性のEloのzスコアの相関が高いモデルほどパーソナリティが似ており、近くにまとめられます。系統樹は単一のモデルから始めて、モデルかクラスターかを問わず、平均距離が最も小さい2つのグループを繰り返し結合していきます。

独自のパーソナリティランキングを構築

30の特性から任意のものを選び、−2〜+2の重みを付けます。選んだ特性のEloのzスコアを加重平均で合成し、ベンチマークで評価したすべてのモデルにわたる1〜100のパーセンタイル順位にします。

カスタム重み付けパーソナリティランキング

−2〜+2の重みを付けた、あなた独自のパーソナリティ特性の組み合わせ · 選んだ特性のEloのzスコアの加重平均 · ベンチマークで評価したすべてのモデルにわたる1〜100のパーセンタイル順位 · 負の重みはスコアから差し引かれます
特性
0個の特性を選択中
ランキングを表示するには特性を選択してください

コミュニケーション特性

上記の判定する特性とは別に、各回答から直接測定する21項目の指標です。各セルは回答あたりの平均を示し、ベンチマークで評価したすべてのモデルにわたるパーセンタイル順位で色分けしています。

コミュニケーション特性:長さ

各回答のおおよその長さ。文字数、単語数、文の数、段落数に加え、平均文長(1文あたりの単語数)。

モデルのフィンガープリント

各モデルで最も強いシグナルと最も弱いシグナルを、全モデルの平均より上(+)または下(−)に標準偏差(σ)いくつ分かで示します。

モデルのフィンガープリント:パーソナリティ特性

ベンチマークで評価したすべてのモデルの平均に対して、各モデルが最も上回る判定特性5つと最も下回る判定特性5つ · 単位は特性Eloの標準偏差(σ)
Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)
平均を最も上回る
  1. Evidence-Based+2.2σ
  2. Information Dense+1.8σ
  3. Truthful+1.7σ
  4. Lexically Varied+1.3σ
  5. Creative+1.3σ
平均を最も下回る
  1. Slop−1.0σ
  2. Sycophantic−0.3σ
  3. Bottom-Line Summary−0.2σ
GPT-6 Astra (Max)
平均を最も上回る
  1. Truthful+1.5σ
  2. Admits Uncertainty+1.5σ
  3. Disclaims Assumptions+1.4σ
  4. Structured+1.3σ
  5. Open-Ended+1.1σ
平均を最も下回る
  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)
平均を最も上回る
  1. Disclaims Assumptions+1.6σ
  2. Admits Uncertainty+1.5σ
  3. Truthful+1.4σ
  4. Structured+1.2σ
  5. Direct+1.2σ
平均を最も下回る
  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)
平均を最も上回る
  1. Evidence-Based+2.4σ
  2. Opinionated+2.0σ
  3. Sincere+1.9σ
  4. Information Dense+1.9σ
  5. Natural Sounding+1.9σ
平均を最も下回る
  1. Sycophantic−1.7σ
  2. Slop−0.9σ
  3. Scannable−0.3σ
  4. Answer First+0.0σ
Kimi K3.1 Pro
平均を最も上回る
  1. Truthful+1.4σ
  2. Literate+1.3σ
  3. Disclaims Assumptions+1.3σ
  4. Direct+1.1σ
  5. Admits Uncertainty+1.1σ
平均を最も下回る
  1. Resource-Specific−1.3σ
  2. Slop−1.0σ
  3. Metaphorical−0.9σ
  4. Friendly−0.5σ
  5. Scannable−0.5σ
Muse Wonder (Max)
平均を最も上回る
  1. Friendly+1.8σ
  2. Emotionally Intelligent+1.7σ
  3. Actionable Guidance+1.5σ
  4. Pragmatic+1.4σ
  5. Evidence-Based+1.4σ
平均を最も下回る
  1. Direct−0.8σ
  2. Literate−0.1σ
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)
平均を最も上回る
  1. Direct+1.7σ
  2. Sincere+1.2σ
  3. Answer First+1.1σ
  4. Literate+1.1σ
  5. Natural Sounding+0.8σ
平均を最も下回る
  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)
平均を最も上回る
  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
平均を最も下回る
  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)
平均を最も上回る
  1. Natural Sounding+1.9σ
  2. Lexically Varied+1.6σ
  3. Eloquent+1.6σ
  4. Sincere+1.5σ
  5. Constructive Pushback+1.4σ
平均を最も下回る
  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
平均を最も上回る
  1. Scannable+1.6σ
  2. Open-Ended+1.1σ
  3. Admits Uncertainty+0.5σ
  4. Constructive Pushback+0.5σ
  5. Slop+0.4σ
平均を最も下回る
  1. Answer First−1.5σ
  2. Opinionated−1.3σ
  3. Actionable Guidance−1.1σ
  4. Confident−1.0σ
  5. Sycophantic−1.0σ

評価を探す

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.