AutomationBench Verified is out.
We went through all 600 public tasks in @Zapier's AutomationBench and checked every verifier.
• Agents flagged 323 verifiers as suspicious, human review confirmed 206 real bugs, all 206 are fixed.
• We replayed 1,235 Kimi K3 runs on the old and fixed verifiers and 344 of them (27.9%) got a different grade
• Where verifiers were too strict, pass rate went from 18.8% to 43.8%
• Where they were too lenient, it dropped from 60.2% to 49.7%
Audit and dataset links below.
We took a closer look at Perplexity's WANDR benchmark and found something interesting about how OpenAI was evaluated.
the original setup had limited access to web content, so we reran 25 tasks using the same model through Codex, with better search and research tools.
soft F1 jumped from 0.24 to 0.63, coming close to Perplexity's 0.66 on the same tasks.
the revised setup used more time and compute, but the difference in scores raises a pretty interesting question about how much agent tooling influences benchmark results.
read more on : parsewave.ai/benchmark-resea…
credit to @perplexity_ai for publishing the tasks and the grader. nobody could have checked any of this otherwise
Read the audit and explore the findings: parsewave.ai/benchmark-resea…
Download AutomationBench Verified: kaggle.com/datasets/parsewav…
yeah this is kinda the cheat code. get labs to care about the eval that actually maps to your product and every model release starts doing some of the work for you
shaped retweeted
An independent audit found that the OSWorld 2.0 desktop-agent benchmark gives full credit to runs that clearly failed. Reviewers hand-checked all 108 tasks and found 43 issues (18 major, 25 minor) out of 65 clean tasks, meaning headline leaderboard scores like 72.6 may not reflect real performance. The audit, OSWorld 2.0 Verified, publishes task-level evidence for each finding. parsewave.ai/evaluation-sign…
Introducing OSWorld 2.0 Verified.
We audited every one of the 108 tasks in OSWorld 2.0, pinned to the 08.08.26 snapshot.
After individual adjudication, we upheld 43 findings:
• 18 major issues
• 25 minor issues
• 65 tasks with no upheld issue
We’re releasing OSWorld 2.0 Verified with task-level evidence and adversarial examples.
first of all, insane release. meta out here making frontier models look overpriced again lol. anyways great to see rl paying off and glad its what we do
Meta has released Muse Spark 1.3, their fourth Muse Spark model release in five months. Muse Spark 1.3 (max), which is in limited preview for Meta’s partners, scores 62 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, behind only Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 5. The variant available now, Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh), scores 61 and ties with GPT-5.6 Sol (max) and Grok 4.6 (high). Both variants’ gains come primarily from improvements in agentic work and scientific capabilities
Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) enters the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at 61, up 4 points from Muse Spark 1.2 (57, August) and 8 points from Muse Spark 1.1 (53, July). It enters tied with GPT-5.6 Sol (max), Grok 4.6 (high), and Claude Opus 5 (high), and behind Claude Fable 5.1 (max, 66), Claude Opus 5 (max, 63), and Claude Fable 5 (max, 62)
Muse Spark 1.3 (max), which is in a limited preview stage, lands at 62. This higher index score is enabled by gains vs. Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) in Tau3-Bench Banking (52% vs. 47%) and GDPval-AA v2 (1,754 Elo vs. 1,709). Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is second only to Claude’s Fable and Opus variants in total score
Congratulations to @AIatMeta, @finkd, and @alexandr_wang on the release!
Key Takeaways:
➤ Continued improvement on agentic knowledge work tasks. At the launch of Muse Spark 1.2, we noted its significant gains in agentic knowledge work performance vs. Muse Spark 1.1. The latest iteration continues this trend, with Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) demonstrating a notable 12-point gain vs. Muse Spark 1.2 in Tau3-Bench Banking (35% to 47%), a 5-point gain in Terminal-Bench 2.1 (80% to 85%), and a new GDPval-AA v2 Elo of 1709 against its predecessor’s 1615. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) improves further on Tau3-Bench Banking (52%) and GDPval-AA v2 (1,754 Elo). This Tau3-Bench Banking score is #1 among all models. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) achieves these higher agentic work scores by using more turns and total reasoning tokens, reasoning 62% more on GDPval-AA v2 and 28% more on Tau3-Bench Banking compared to Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh)
➤ The lowest cost per task for any model at 59+ on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) costs $0.55 per Intelligence Index task at Meta's unchanged $1.25/$4.25 per 1M token pricing ($0.15 for cached input), with its peers GPT-5.6 Sol (max) and Grok 4.6 (high) costing $0.95 and $0.94 respectively, a 70%+ premium. This places Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) on the Pareto frontier for Intelligence vs. Cost per Task. Its cost per task is higher than Muse Spark 1.2 ($0.40 per task), driven by ~57% more input tokens per task on agentic evaluations, with output tokens up only ~8%. Pricing for Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is not yet publicly available
➤ Scientific Reasoning results rose across the board, led by CritPt. CritPt was the standout non-agentic score gain vs. Muse Spark 1.2, with a material +8 points for the xhigh variant (18% to 26%), and GPQA Diamond achieved +4 points (90% to 94%), while Humanity’s Last Exam and SciCode each gained a more modest 2-3 points (45% to 47% and 56% to 59%, respectively). Muse Spark 1.3 (max) achieved roughly similar scores to the xhigh variant, gaining 2 points in Humanity’s Last Exam, tying on GPQA Diamond, and losing a point on CritPt vs. Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh)
➤ Minor regressions in only two evaluations. Both Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) dropped 4 points in AA-LCR (83% to 79%) when compared to Muse Spark 1.2, and AA-Omniscience (Accuracy) fell 3 points for xhigh and 1 point for max. The drops in AA-Omniscience (Accuracy) are due to a higher abstention rate (not answering questions when unsure), which also lowered the hallucination rate for Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh)
Other model details (xhigh variant):
➤ Context window: 1M tokens, unchanged from Muse Spark 1.2
➤ Pricing: unchanged from Muse Spark 1.2: $1.25/$4.25 per 1M input/output tokens, with cache hits discounted to $0.15 per 1M
➤ Input modalities: text, image, video
➤ Availability: Meta's first-party API and Muse Code
Happy to see that our RL work is helping to the move the frontier 🫡















