Benchmark Almanac

MLS-Bench

Claude Fable 5.1 50.3% leads since September 2026
Claude Fable 5.1 50.3% leads since September 2026
In use

Agent must invent one algorithmic change in an ML research scaffold whose gain transfers across settings. Scored relative to human baselines.

140 tasks over 12 ML domains. Lite = 30-task subset (~99 H100-hours) with 5-hour limit per task. Score >50 beats strongest human baseline.

Released
May 2026
Kind
AI research tasks
Level
Research frontier
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
September 2026
Last model added
September 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Modern AI progress has been driven by ML methods that are generalizable across settings and scalable to larger regimes. As large language models demonstrate advanced capabilities in reasoning, coding, and engineering tasks, it is increasingly important to understand whether they can discover such methods rather than only apply existing ones. We introduce MLS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating whether AI systems can invent generalizable and scalable ML methods. MLS-Bench contains 140 tasks across 12 domains, each requiring an agent to improve one targeted component of an ML system or algorithm and demonstrate that the improvement generalizes across controlled settings and scales. We find that current agents remain far from reliably surpassing human-designed methods, and that engineering-style tuning is easier for them than genuine method invention. We further study the effects of test-time scaling, adaptive compute allocation, and context provision on agents' discovery performance, together with case studies of their behavior. Our analyses suggest that the bottleneck is not only in proposing new methods, but also in the scientific insight needed to plan, validate, and scale claims about them. More search, compute, or context alone does not remove this bottleneck. We build and maintain a community platform for cumulative and comparable iteration, and release the data and code at https://mls-bench.com.

Abstract of MLS-Bench: A Holistic and Rigorous Assessment of AI Systems on Building Better AI (arXiv:2605.08678, CC0)
15
Models scored on its own leaderboard
5
Launch posts list it, from 3 labs
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 50.3% 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.

Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 50.3%, 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 September 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Fable 5.1 max 50.3%
  2. 2 GPT-6 Astra max 50%
  3. 3 Claude Fable 5 max 49.9%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 5 max 49.8%
  5. 5 Kimi K3 max 48.3%
  6. 6 GPT-5.6 Sol max 46.2%
  7. 7 Claude Opus 4.8 max 42.8%
  8. 8 Qwen 3.8 Max 41%
  9. 9 GLM-5.2 max 40.4%
  10. 10 GPT-5.5 xhigh 35.5%
  11. 11 Kimi K2.7 Code 35.1%
  12. 12 Qwen3.7-Max 31.7%
  13. 13 Claude Sonnet 5 max 31.4%
  14. 14 Kimi K2.6 26.7%
  15. 15 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 24.4%

Source: Official MLS-Bench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Fable 5.1 50.3% max, Claude Code Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-6 Astra 50% max, Codex Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Fable 5 49.9% max, Claude Code (with fallback) Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 5 49.8% max, Claude Code Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Kimi K3 48.3% max, Kimi-Code Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.6 Sol 46.2% max, Codex Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Claude Opus 4.8 42.8% max, Claude Code May 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen 3.8 Max 41% Claude Code Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
9 GLM-5.2 40.4% max, Claude Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-5.5 35.5% xhigh, Codex Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Kimi K2.7 Code 35.1% Kimi-Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen3.7-Max 31.7% Claude Code May 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Claude Sonnet 5 31.4% max, Claude Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Kimi K2.6 26.7% Kimi-Code Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
15 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 24.4% Claude Code Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Fable 5.1 50.3% max, Claude Code Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 50.1% Sep 2026 Lab model card
3 GPT-6 Astra 50% max, Codex Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Fable 5 49.9% max, Claude Code (with fallback) Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Opus 5 49.8% max, Claude Code Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Kimi K3 48.3% max, Kimi-Code Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-5.6 Sol 46.2% max, Codex Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Opus 4.8 42.8% max, Claude Code May 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Qwen 3.8 Max 41% Claude Code Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Step 5 Preview 40.5% Sep 2026 Lab model card
11 GLM-5.2 40.4% max, Claude Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
12 GPT-5.5 35.5% xhigh, Codex Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Kimi K2.7 Code 35.1% Kimi-Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen3.7-Max 31.7% Claude Code May 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Claude Sonnet 5 31.4% max, Claude Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Kimi K2.6 26.7% Kimi-Code Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
17 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 24.4% Claude Code Apr 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 5 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

4 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2026 4 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 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.

OpenAI Anthropic Moonshot AI Qwen
Own leaderboard Not tested since Sep 2026
Lab claims Not tested since Sep 2026

Sources: Official MLS-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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5.1 Claude Fable 5 Claude Opus 4.8 GPT-5.5 Kimi K2.6 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5.1 Claude Opus 4.8

Sources: Official MLS-Bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

3 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.

Moonshot AI
Qwen
StepFun
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Sep 20, 2026 Step 5 Preview 40.5 MLS-Bench-Lite
Sep 2, 2026 Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 50.1 Machine learning research engineering, MLS-Bench-Lite
Aug 3, 2026 Qwen 3.8 Max 41 MLS-Bench-Lite
Jul 16, 2026 Kimi K3 48.3 MLS-Bench-Lite
Jun 12, 2026 Kimi K2.7 Code 35.1 MLS Bench Lite

One system card reports it

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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Jul 27, 2026 Kimi K3 technical report 48.3 MLS-Bench-Lite (Table 2) AI R&D risk

3 lab claims 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. 3 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Kimi K2.7 Code 35.1% MLS Bench Lite 35.1% Leaderboard, Kimi-Code Same
Kimi K3 48.3% MLS-Bench-Lite 48.3% Leaderboard, max, Kimi-Code Same
Qwen 3.8 Max 41% MLS-Bench-Lite 41% Leaderboard, Claude Code Same

More in AI research

All 104 in AI research
  • PaperBench In use Agent replicates ICML 2024 papers from scratch. LLM judge grades against author-written hierarchical rubrics. Qwen 3.8 Max 93%
  • PostTrainBench 1.2 In use CLI agent gets a base model, one H100 and a time budget to post-train it for a target benchmark. Scored on normalized gain. Claude Fable 5.1 44.6%
  • MLE-bench In use Kaggle-style ML engineering competitions. Agent trains models and is scored against competition leaderboards. GPT-6 Astra 93.8%
  • KernelBench In use Replace PyTorch operators with faster custom GPU kernels. Scored on correctness and speedup. MiniMax-M3 28.8%
  • PMPP-Hard In use Agents write GPU kernels for 69 tasks that must be correct, and on 48 of them also run within 1.25 times the reference time. The score is the area under the solved-tasks curve over a 10-hour budget, out of 690 task-hours. Inkling 2 Small 494.3
  • OpenAI PRs Only in system cards Agents replicate internal OpenAI pull requests from a pre-PR branch and a prompt. Graded by hidden unit tests as pass@1. GPT-5.2 55%