CL-bench
Model must learn new knowledge from a supplied long context (rules, procedures, data) and solve tasks. Strict LLM-verified rubrics.
500 contexts, 1,899 tasks, 31,607 rubrics. Follow-up CL-bench Life (2026-04) covers everyday contexts.
- Released
- February 2026
- Kind
- Learning from the context
- Level
- University
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.4 #27 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- July 2026
- Last model added
- July 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Current language models (LMs) excel at reasoning over prompts using pre-trained knowledge. However, real-world tasks are far more complex and context-dependent: models must learn from task-specific context and leverage new knowledge beyond what is learned during pre-training to reason and resolve tasks. We term this capability context learning, a crucial ability that humans naturally possess but has been largely overlooked. To this end, we introduce CL-bench, a real-world benchmark consisting of 500 complex contexts, 1,899 tasks, and 31,607 verification rubrics, all crafted by experienced domain experts. Each task is designed such that the new content required to resolve it is contained within the corresponding context. Resolving tasks in CL-bench requires models to learn from the context, ranging from new domain-specific knowledge, rule systems, and complex procedures to laws derived from empirical data, all of which are absent from pre-training. This goes far beyond long-context tasks that primarily test retrieval or reading comprehension, and in-context learning tasks, where models learn simple task patterns via instructions and demonstrations. Our evaluations of ten frontier LMs find that models solve only 17.2% of tasks on average. Even the best-performing model, GPT-5.1, solves only 23.7%, revealing that LMs have yet to achieve effective context learning, which poses a critical bottleneck for tackling real-world, complex context-dependent tasks. CL-bench represents a step towards building LMs with this fundamental capability, making them more intelligent and advancing their deployment in real-world scenarios.
GPT-5.4 leads with 27.9% among models released by April 2026
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
GPT-5.4 leads with 27.9%, claims included
Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.
The newest model with a score here came out in April 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 27.9 GPT-5.4
- 23.7 GPT-5.1
- 23.4 Polyphony
- 22.8
Tencent Hy3 preview
- 22.2 Grok 4.20
- 21.1 Claude Opus 4.5
- 20.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 20.7 Claude Opus 4.6
- 20.6 SEED 2.0 (high)
- 20.3
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 19.8
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B)
- 19.3 Kimi K2.5
- 18.7 SEED 2.0 (medium)
- 18.7 GLM-5
- 18.2 GPT-5.2
- 17.8 o3
- 17.6 Kimi K2 Thinking
- 17.2
Tencent HY 2.0 Think
- 16.1
Seed1.8
- 15.9 GLM-4.7
- 15.8
Gemini 3 Pro
- 15.7 MiMo-V2-Pro
- 15.0 Hy2.0
- 14.5
Qwen3-Max
- 13.4
Doubao-Seed-1.6
- 13.2
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 11.9 Kimi K2
- 11.4
MiniMax-M2.5
- 1 GPT-5.4 xhigh 27.9%
- 2 GPT-5.1 high 23.7%
- 3 Polyphony 23.4%
- 4
Tencent Hy3 preview 22.8%
- 5 Grok 4.20 reasoning 22.2%
- 6 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 21.1%
- 7
Gemini 3.1 Pro high 20.8%
- 8 Claude Opus 4.6 20.7%
- 9 SEED 2.0 (high) 20.6%
- 10
Qwen 3.6 Plus 20.3%
- 11
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B) thinking 19.8%
- 12 Kimi K2.5 19.3%
- 13 SEED 2.0 (medium) 18.7%
- 14 GLM-5 18.7%
- 15 GPT-5.2 18.2%
- 16 o3 high 17.8%
- 17 Kimi K2 Thinking 17.6%
- 18
Tencent HY 2.0 Think 17.2%
- 19
Seed1.8 16.1%
- 20 GLM-4.7 15.9%
- 21
Gemini 3 Pro high 15.8%
- 22 MiMo-V2-Pro 15.7%
- 23 Hy2.0 15%
- 24
Qwen3-Max 14.5%
- 25
Doubao-Seed-1.6 thinking 13.4%
- 26
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 13.2%
- 27 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 11.9%
- 28
MiniMax-M2.5 11.4%
Source: Official CL-bench leaderboard
- 27.9 GPT-5.4
- 23.8
Tencent Hy3
- 23.7 GPT-5.1
- 22.8
Tencent Hy3 preview
- 22.2 Grok 4.20
- 21.1 Claude Opus 4.5
- 20.8
Seed2.0 Pro
- 20.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 20.7 Claude Opus 4.6
- 20.5
MiniMax-M3
- 20.3
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 20.1
Seed2.0 Lite (0428)
- 19.8
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B)
- 19.3 Kimi K2.5
- 18.7 GLM-5
- 18.2 GPT-5.2
- 17.8 o3
- 17.6 Kimi K2 Thinking
- 17.2
Tencent HY 2.0 Think
- 16.1
Seed1.8
- 15.9 GLM-4.7
- 15.8
Gemini 3 Pro
- 15.7 MiMo-V2-Pro
- 14.5
Qwen3-Max
- 13.4
Doubao-Seed-1.6
- 13.2
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 12.2
Nemotron-Cascade 2 30B-A3B
- 11.9 Kimi K2
- 11.4
MiniMax-M2.5
- 1 GPT-5.4 xhigh 27.9%
- 2
Tencent Hy3 23.8%
- 3 GPT-5.1 high 23.7%
- 4
Tencent Hy3 preview 22.8%
- 5 Grok 4.20 reasoning 22.2%
- 6 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 21.1%
- 7
Seed2.0 Pro 20.8%
- 8
Gemini 3.1 Pro high 20.8%
- 9 Claude Opus 4.6 20.7%
- 10
MiniMax-M3 20.5%
- 11
Qwen 3.6 Plus 20.3%
- 12
Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 20.1%
- 13
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B) thinking 19.8%
- 14 Kimi K2.5 19.3%
- 15 GLM-5 18.7%
- 16 GPT-5.2 18.2%
- 17 o3 high 17.8%
- 18 Kimi K2 Thinking 17.6%
- 19
Tencent HY 2.0 Think 17.2%
- 20
Seed1.8 16.1%
- 21 GLM-4.7 15.9%
- 22
Gemini 3 Pro high 15.8%
- 23 MiMo-V2-Pro 15.7%
- 24
Qwen3-Max 14.5%
- 25
Doubao-Seed-1.6 thinking 13.4%
- 26
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 13.2%
- 27
Nemotron-Cascade 2 30B-A3B 12.2%
- 28 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 11.9%
- 29
MiniMax-M2.5 11.4%
Sources: Official CL-bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5.4 | 27.9% | xhigh | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-5.1 | 23.7% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | Polyphony | 23.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | | 22.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Grok 4.20 | 22.2% | reasoning | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 21.1% | thinking | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 20.8% | high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 20.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | SEED 2.0 (high) | 20.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | | 20.3% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 19.8% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | Kimi K2.5 | 19.3% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | SEED 2.0 (medium) | 18.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | GLM-5 | 18.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | GPT-5.2 | 18.2% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | o3 | 17.8% | high | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | Kimi K2 Thinking | 17.6% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 17.2% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 16.1% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | GLM-4.7 | 15.9% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | | 15.8% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 22 | MiMo-V2-Pro | 15.7% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | Hy2.0 | 15% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 24 | | 14.5% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 13.4% | thinking | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 26 | | 13.2% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 27 | Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | 11.9% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | | 11.4% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5.4 | 27.9% | xhigh | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 23.8% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | GPT-5.1 | 23.7% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 22.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Grok 4.20 | 22.2% | reasoning | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 21.1% | thinking | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 20.8% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 20.8% | high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 20.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 20.5% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 11 | | 20.3% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 20.1% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 13 | | 19.8% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | Kimi K2.5 | 19.3% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | GLM-5 | 18.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | GPT-5.2 | 18.2% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | o3 | 17.8% | high | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | Kimi K2 Thinking | 17.6% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 17.2% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 16.1% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | GLM-4.7 | 15.9% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | | 15.8% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | MiMo-V2-Pro | 15.7% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 14.5% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 13.4% | thinking | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 26 | | 13.2% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 27 | | 12.2% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 28 | Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | 11.9% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | | 11.4% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 6 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
Scores at each effort level
Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.
Source: Official CL-bench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.4 | xhigh | 27.9% | |||
| GPT-5.1 | high | 23.7% | |||
| | 22.8% | ||||
| Grok 4.20 | reasoning | 22.2% | |||
| GPT-5.1 | 21.1% | ||||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | thinking | 21.1% | |||
| | high | 20.8% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | 20.7% | ||||
| | 20.3% | ||||
| | thinking | 19.8% | |||
| Kimi K2.5 | 19.3% | ||||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | 19.1% | ||||
| GLM-5 | 18.7% | ||||
| GPT-5.2 | 18.2% | ||||
| GPT-5.2 | high | 18.1% | |||
| o3 | high | 17.8% | |||
| Grok 4.20 | non-reasoning | 17.7% | |||
| Kimi K2 Thinking | 17.6% | ||||
| | 17.2% | ||||
| | 16.1% | ||||
| GLM-4.7 | 15.9% | ||||
| | high | 15.8% | |||
| MiMo-V2-Pro | 15.7% | ||||
| | 14.8% | ||||
| | 14.5% | ||||
| | thinking | 14.1% | |||
| | thinking | 13.4% | |||
| | thinking | 13.2% | |||
| | 13.1% | ||||
| | 12.4% | ||||
| Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | 11.9% | ||||
| | 11.4% |
2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in February 2026 2 models have held number one with claims included since its release in February 2026
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
Sources: Official CL-bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official CL-bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards
2 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2, 2026 | 23.8 | CL-bench | |
| Jun 1, 2026 | 20.5 | CL-bench | |
| Apr 28, 2026 | 20.1 | CL-Bench | |
| Apr 23, 2026 | 22.8 | CL-bench | |
| Mar 19, 2026 | 12.2 | CL-Bench | |
| Feb 14, 2026 | 20.8 | CL-Bench |
2 system cards report it, from 2 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19, 2026 | | 12.2 | CL-Bench (Table 1) | Capabilities |
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 20.8 | CL-Bench (Table 3). Table 13 prints 21.5 | Capabilities |
One lab claim next to the leaderboard
Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. 1 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.
| Model | Lab says | Board says | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| | 22.8% CL-bench | 22.8% Leaderboard | Same |
More in Long context
- MRCR v2 In use Multi-round coreference: retrieve the n-th of several similar requests hidden in a long synthetic conversation, up to 1M tokens.
Muse Spark 1.3 98.5%
- LongBench v2 In use 503 multiple-choice questions over 8K-2M-word contexts (QA, dialogue, code repos, structured data). Accuracy.
Inkling 2 Small 70.6%
- GraphWalks In use A graph is given as an edge list in long context. The model answers BFS or parent queries, scored by F1. Claude Fable 5 99.96%
- OpenAI MRCR v2 In use Models read a long synthetic chat that hides 2, 4 or 8 identical writing requests and must reproduce the response to the i-th one. Scored by mean string match ratio per context bin.
Gemini 3.7 Flash 89%
- AA-LCR 1.1 In use Models answer 100 questions that need reasoning across sets of real documents of about 100K tokens. An LLM equality checker with a fixed system prompt compares each answer with the key.
Step 5 Preview 88.3%
- LOCA-Bench In use Agentic tasks whose environment state is scaled to grow context length while task semantics stay fixed. Success rate versus context length. GPT-5.2 21.3%