Todas as avaliações

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.
Ver tarefas de exemplo

Índices de personalidade

Cada índice calcula a média dos escores z de Elo dos seus traços e depois atribui a ela um ranking percentil de 1 a 100 entre todos os modelos avaliados no benchmark.

Índices de personalidade

Cada eixo é um dos 8 índices de personalidade: a média dos escores z de Elo dos seus traços, com ranking percentil de 1 a 100 entre todos os modelos avaliados no benchmark

Como os traços formam os índices de personalidade

30 perguntas por traço de personalidade (900 perguntas no total), avaliadas por um painel de modelos. Cada índice converte as classificações Elo dos seus traços em escores z, inverte os traços quando necessário, calcula a média e atribui ao resultado um ranking percentil de 1 a 100 entre todos os modelos avaliados no benchmark.

Exemplos de perguntas, respostas e avaliação

Explore as 5 perguntas públicas do AA-PersonalityBench, com respostas dos modelos em destaque. Cada resposta é avaliada em pares contra as respostas de outros modelos à mesma pergunta, no traço dessa pergunta. A avaliação mostrada é de uma única pergunta; as pontuações por traço usam todas as 30 perguntas de cada traço.

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

Modelo A

My vote: needing a “valid excuse” to decline an invitation.

“I have an appointment” is fine. “I’d rather stay home” can sound rude—even though both mean you’re not coming.

Apparently, your free time only deserves respect once a dentist has claimed it.

Modelo B

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.

Resumo da avaliação

GPT-6.1 Sol (Max)
Taxa de vitórias na pergunta32%18 mais · 0 empate · 38 menos, de 56 comparações · empates contam como meia vitória
Percentil de Humorous49ºentre todas as 30 perguntas e todos os modelos
Veredicto de exemplo
3 de 3 juízesMenos Humorous
GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) vs. MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Answer B delivers a rapid-fire series of witty, observational jokes (such as describing blowing out candles as spitting on a communal dessert, or handshakes as a secret society ritual). While Answer A has a clever closing line, Answer B maintains a playful, humorous tone throughout the entire response.

As respostas foram anonimizadas: a Resposta A era de GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) e a Resposta B era de MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
GLM-5.3 (Max)
Taxa de vitórias na pergunta48%15 mais · 1 empate · 16 menos, de 32 comparações · empates contam como meia vitória
Percentil de Humorous76ºentre todas as 30 perguntas e todos os modelos
Veredicto de exemplo
3 de 3 juízesMenos Humorous
GLM-5.3 (Max) vs.

Both responses are funny, but Answer B sustains a much denser level of humor throughout. It leans into comedic reframing with vivid, absurd imagery: the birthday cake described as a 'high-calorie loaf of sugar that has been set on fire,' blowing out candles as an 'aerosolized lung-blast,' clapping as 'repeatedly slapping your own flesh together,' and lawn care existing to 'prove to our neighbors that we aren't feral.' Nearly every item is delivered as a punchline with playful exaggeration and an amused, observational tone. Answer A is genuinely witty too (e.g., 'Congratulations on surviving another year—here's your catering bill'), but its humor is more understated and it pivots to a dry, analytical conclusion about norm enforcement, making it comparatively restrained. Answer B expresses the humorous trait the most.

As respostas foram anonimizadas: a Resposta A era de GLM-5.3 (Max) e a Resposta B era de .
Estas duas respostas não foram avaliadas uma contra a outra nesta pergunta, então cada uma mostra um veredicto contra outro modelo.

Resultados detalhados por traço de personalidade

Todos os 30 traços de personalidade avaliados por juízes que compõem os 8 índices.

Traços de Expressiveness

Linguagem rica, variada e bem construída · O Elo de cada traço com ranking percentil de 1 a 100 entre todos os modelos avaliados no benchmark

Rankings de traços de personalidade

O Elo de cada traço com ranking percentil de 1 a 100 entre todos os modelos avaliados no benchmark. As abas “Geral” mostram o índice: a média dos escores z de Elo dos seus traços, com ranking percentil calculado da mesma forma. As barras de erro mostram o intervalo de confiança de 95% de cada modelo na mesma escala.

AA-PersonalityBench: índice Expressiveness

Linguagem rica, variada e bem construída · Média dos escores z de Elo de cada modelo em lexically varied, eloquent, literate, natural sounding e metaphorical · Ranking percentil de 1 a 100 entre todos os modelos avaliados no benchmark

Compare as personalidades dos modelos

Compare dois modelos quaisquer: cada barra mostra a probabilidade de a resposta de um modelo ser julgada como a que demonstra mais o traço, com base nos seus Elos.

vs.

AA-PersonalityBench: índice Expressiveness, GLM-5.3-Flash vs. MiniMax-M3.1-Flash

Probabilidade de a resposta de cada modelo ser julgada como a que demonstra mais cada traço, a partir da diferença de Elo entre os dois · 50% é um confronto equilibrado
Z AIGLM-5.3-FlashMiniMaxMiniMax-M3.1-Flash
Lexically Varied
98%
2%
Eloquent
98%
2%
Natural Sounding
98%
2%
Metaphorical
96%
4%
Literate
67%
33%

Famílias e clusters emergentes de modelos

Modelos agrupados pela semelhança entre seus traços avaliados por juízes e suas características de comunicação, usando clusterização por ligação média sobre a correlação entre os escores z.

Famílias de personalidade emergentes

Os modelos têm personalidades semelhantes e ficam agrupados de perto quando a correlação dos escores z de Elo dos seus 30 traços é alta. Partindo de modelos individuais, a árvore une repetidamente os dois grupos com a menor distância média, sejam eles modelos ou clusters.

Monte seu próprio ranking de personalidade

Escolha qualquer um dos 30 traços e atribua pesos de −2 a +2. Os escores z de Elo dos seus traços são combinados em uma média ponderada, que recebe um ranking percentil de 1 a 100 entre todos os modelos avaliados no benchmark.

Ranking de personalidade com pesos personalizados

Sua combinação de traços de personalidade com pesos de −2 a +2 · Média ponderada dos escores z de Elo dos traços escolhidos · Ranking percentil de 1 a 100 entre todos os modelos avaliados no benchmark · Pesos negativos subtraem da pontuação
Traços
0 traço selecionado
Selecione traços para ver os rankings

Características de comunicação

21 métricas medidas diretamente em cada resposta, separadas dos traços avaliados por juízes acima. As células mostram a média por resposta, coloridas pelo seu ranking percentil entre todos os modelos avaliados no benchmark.

Características de comunicação: Tamanho

Qual é o tamanho típico de cada resposta: número de caracteres, palavras, frases e parágrafos, além do tamanho médio das frases (palavras por frase).

Impressões digitais dos modelos

Os sinais mais fortes e mais fracos de cada modelo, em desvios padrão (σ) acima (+) ou abaixo (−) da média entre os modelos.

Impressões digitais dos modelos: traços de personalidade

Os cinco traços avaliados por juízes em que cada modelo fica mais acima e mais abaixo da média entre todos os modelos avaliados no benchmark · Desvios padrão (σ) do Elo do traço
Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)
Mais acima da média
  1. Evidence-Based+2.1σ
  2. Information Dense+1.7σ
  3. Truthful+1.6σ
  4. Lexically Varied+1.3σ
  5. Literate+1.3σ
Mais abaixo da média
  1. Slop−1.0σ
  2. Sycophantic−0.3σ
  3. Bottom-Line Summary−0.2σ
GPT-6 Astra (Max)
Mais acima da média
  1. Truthful+1.5σ
  2. Admits Uncertainty+1.5σ
  3. Disclaims Assumptions+1.4σ
  4. Structured+1.3σ
  5. Open-Ended+1.1σ
Mais abaixo da média
  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)
Mais acima da média
  1. Disclaims Assumptions+1.6σ
  2. Admits Uncertainty+1.5σ
  3. Truthful+1.4σ
  4. Structured+1.2σ
  5. Direct+1.2σ
Mais abaixo da média
  1. Resource-Specific−1.8σ
  2. Slop−1.2σ
  3. Metaphorical−1.1σ
  4. Information Dense−0.6σ
  5. Actionable Guidance−0.5σ
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Mais acima da média
  1. Truthful+1.4σ
  2. Disclaims Assumptions+1.3σ
  3. Literate+1.3σ
  4. Direct+1.1σ
  5. Admits Uncertainty+1.1σ
Mais abaixo da média
  1. Resource-Specific−1.3σ
  2. Slop−1.0σ
  3. Metaphorical−0.9σ
  4. Friendly−0.5σ
  5. Scannable−0.5σ
Muse Wonder (Max)
Mais acima da média
  1. Friendly+1.9σ
  2. Emotionally Intelligent+1.6σ
  3. Actionable Guidance+1.5σ
  4. Pragmatic+1.4σ
  5. Evidence-Based+1.3σ
Mais abaixo da média
  1. Direct−0.8σ
  2. Literate−0.1σ
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)
Mais acima da média
  1. Direct+1.7σ
  2. Sincere+1.2σ
  3. Answer First+1.1σ
  4. Literate+1.1σ
  5. Natural Sounding+0.8σ
Mais abaixo da média
  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)
Mais acima da média
  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
Mais abaixo da média
  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)
Mais acima da média
  1. Natural Sounding+1.9σ
  2. Lexically Varied+1.6σ
  3. Eloquent+1.6σ
  4. Sincere+1.5σ
  5. Constructive Pushback+1.4σ
Mais abaixo da média
  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
Mais acima da média
  1. Scannable+1.6σ
  2. Open-Ended+1.1σ
  3. Admits Uncertainty+0.5σ
  4. Constructive Pushback+0.5σ
  5. Slop+0.4σ
Mais abaixo da média
  1. Answer First−1.5σ
  2. Opinionated−1.2σ
  3. Actionable Guidance−1.1σ
  4. Confident−1.0σ
  5. Sycophantic−1.0σ

Explorar avaliações

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.

Multimodal Knowledge Agent (MKA) BenchmarkMultimodal Knowledge Agent (MKA) Benchmark

Artificial Analysis' implementation of Google DeepMind's Multimodal Knowledge Agent (MKA) benchmark. It tests whether agents can read visually dense project files, such as architectural drawings, engineering schematics and clinical scans, and produce the deliverables a professional would.

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.