全部 AI 动态

Today we are announcing Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 in collaboration with Harvey. This updates our scoring methodology for the Legal Agent Benchmark (LAB) to add a hallucination check and require correct responses to not include material misstatements. LAB-AA v1.1's new headline metric, Hallucination-Gated All-Pass Rate, only credits a task when the deliverables satisfy every rubric criterion and contain no material hallucinations. We define a material hallucination as one that would mislead a reader on a substantive point, such as a wrong contractually required date, while a minor hallucination is a real error that is unlikely to meaningfully affect the legal interpretation of a deliverable. Minor hallucinations are reported separately and do not affect the headline score. Grok 4.7 (xhigh) leads at 9.4% Hallucination-Gated All-Pass Rate, and >60% of otherwise passing results across the models tested at launch contain a material hallucination. This is the first step in enhancing the methodology for Harvey LAB-AA. In future updates, we’re working with Harvey to better account for the full set of factors lawyers value, including usability features like style and tone. Key takeaways: ➤ Top of the leaderboard: Grok 4.7 (xhigh) from @SpaceXAI leads at 9.4% Hallucination-Gated All-Pass Rate, narrowly ahead of Muse Spark 1.3 (max) from @AIatMeta at 8.9% and GPT-6 Astra (max) from @OpenAI at 8.6% ➤ Hallucinations reshape the leaderboard: without the hallucination gate, Muse Spark 1.3 (max) would lead clearly with a 26.7% all-pass rate, but two thirds of those passes contain one or more material hallucinations, resulting in a Hallucination-Gated All-Pass Rate of 8.9%. GPT-6 Astra (max) retains almost all of its passes after the hallucination gate (8.9% to 8.6%) and moves from joint 10th to 3rd ➤ The GPT-6 model family is the most grounded: GPT-6 Astra (max) averages 0.03 material hallucinations per task (4 across all 120 tasks) and GPT-6 Sol (max) averages 0.07. When comparing six checker models on a 20-task subset, GPT-6 Astra had zero material hallucinations under every checker, including Claude Opus 5.5 (high). By comparison, Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) averages 13.96 material hallucinations per task. ➤ Top-scoring models aren’t the most expensive: Grok 4.7 (xhigh) takes the top spot on the leaderboard at a cost of ~$9.50 per task, under half the cost of Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) at ~$21.70, the most expensive model. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) represents strong performance for its cost, landing in second for ~$4.20 per task Thank you to @nikogrupen and @ItsJulioPereyra from @harvey for their work on Harvey LAB and collaboration.

We introduce ExploreNet🔍 for learnable exploration in diffusion RL. ExploreNet learns an adaptive exploration distribution conditioned on the current state, rewarded by the diversity of the rollouts. ➡️ Faster, more targeted learning in diffusion GRPO.

💡Our view: RSI is a systems engineering problem, not just a model problem. Progress depends on the environment a research agent works in: what resources it can call, what it can change, and how it runs experiments. That environment should reflect real production workflows and be easy for agents to use. At @Evolvent_AI, we built RSIGym around Everything as a Service. Agents can call established research services and iterate on data, training settings, and harness code. We also introduce RSI-Index to measure how well frontier agents jointly improve a target model’s weights and harness. Across 6 research agents and 5 benchmarks, Opus 5 leads at 0.4809. 🧵 We’re releasing the code, experiment configurations, research trajectories, and evaluation logs. Try your own improvement methods with RSIGym. 🌐 Website: https://rsi-index.ai/ 💻 GitHub: https://github.com/evolvent-ai/RSIGym 📄 arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10310

We are publishing an update to OpenAI problem #109 Integer multiplication) with another substantial further tightening: κ = 2⁻⁵⁹ (from OpenAI’s original κ = 2⁻¹⁸²) Approximately 500 thousand fold improvement over our previous result and a 2¹²³ fold improvement over the original OAI result. The latest redesigned the finite network to share intermediate computations and scratch space, then tightened the recursion and Gaussian estimates.

Language models already excel at math, but human growth remains essential: we need AI to teach people, not replace them! Teaching is different from solving. As the Chinese principle “因材施教” suggests, preferences differ from person to person, and a good teacher should adapt their teaching to each learner. We introduce Sherpa, a framework for training LLMs to teach adaptively.