InteractiveBench
Multimodal models act as a wearable assistant that sees through a simulated person's eyes and guides that person through household tasks. State-based checks in a BEHAVIOR-1K home score the outcome.
120 multi-turn tasks in six categories, 20 each, built on the InteractiveWorld simulator. 12 frontier models in the first release. Claude Fable 5.1 reached at most 25% on long-horizon categories.
- Made by
- Meta + Duke University
- Released
- October 2026
- Kind
- Simulated robots
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- Claude Fable 5.1 #7 on the capability index
- Last model added
- September 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
People have long dreamed of an assistant that is always there to guide them and remind what they forget, from new dishes to lost keys. Powered by multimodal large language models (MLLMs), egocentric AI assistants on wearable devices are bringing this dream within reach: they see what the user sees and give instructions for user's physical work when necessary. However, testing such assistance is challenging and usually requires real people. The expensive and rare real interaction data leaves a key question unanswered: Can today's MLLMs truly help people in physical world? To answer this question, we propose InteractiveWorld, the first verifiable environment for closed-loop interaction between human and AI assistant. Unlike existing robot-centric simulators, InteractiveWorld lets the assistant guide a human agent who observes the scene, understands instructions, and acts independently. It thus realistically simulates how AI assistant collaborates with human: the assistant instructs, the human acts, and the environment executes actions and updates what they see next. Building on it, we introduce InteractiveBench, the first dynamic benchmark for egocentric AI assistants, with 120 multi-turn tasks across six categories. In each task, the assistant guides the human in real time, and every instruction shapes the outcome, which is scored by verifiable, state-based rewards. Experiments with 12 frontier MLLMs show they are still far from reliable assistants. Even the strongest model, Claude Fable 5.1, achieves at most 20% and 25% on long-horizon Guidance and Planning tasks, respectively. Overall, our work offers a verifiable platform and a rigorous evaluation set, laying a solid foundation for research on interactive MLLM assistants that truly help people in the physical world.
Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 41.7% among models released by September 2026
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
The newest model with a score here came out in September 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
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 12 more
- 1 Claude Fable 5.1 41.7%
- 2 Claude Opus 5 33.3%
- 3
Muse Spark 1.1 31.7%
- 4 GPT-5.6 Sol 30.8%
- 5 GPT-5.5 30%
- 6 GLM-5.3-Flash 30%
- 7 Claude Opus 4.8 28.3%
- 8 Kimi K3 24.2%
- 9
Qwen 3.8 Max 22.5%
- 10
Gemini 3.1 Pro 20.8%
- 11 GPT-5.6 Luna 20%
- 12
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 12.5%
Source: Official InteractiveBench leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Fable 5.1 | 41.7% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Claude Opus 5 | 33.3% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 31.7% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 30.8% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | GPT-5.5 | 30% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | GLM-5.3-Flash | 30% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 28.3% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | Kimi K3 | 24.2% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 22.5% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 20.8% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | GPT-5.6 Luna | 20% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 12.5% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official InteractiveBench leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official InteractiveBench leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Robotics
- ERQA In use 400 multiple-choice visual questions from robot and egocentric footage on spatial, trajectory, action and state reasoning. Accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 78.5%
- RoboDojo In use Generalist manipulation policies run 42 Isaac Sim tasks and 18 remote real-robot tasks. Scored by task score and success rate. GPT-6 Astra 29%
- RoboLab In use Zero-shot DROID Franka policies in Isaac Lab on 120 tabletop tasks at three instruction levels, 10 episodes each. Success rate. FLUX 3 Action 42.9%
- Progress classification (Google DeepMind) In use Models assign each frame of a robot video to one of five task-progress bands from 0 to 100 percent. Scored by accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 57.4%
- Human proximity (Google DeepMind robotics) In use Models judge from robot camera views whether a human is within 1 meter, a spatial awareness check for safe robot behavior. Scored by accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 93%
- Moment finding (Google DeepMind) In use Models find the moment in a robot video when an event happens. Scored by accuracy and mean absolute time distance in seconds.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 91.3%