Summary of a Haystack
Models read a synthetic haystack of conversation or news documents where specific insights repeat, then write a query-focused summary that cites its sources. An automatic evaluation scores insight coverage and citation accuracy.
The paper tested 10 long-context LLMs and 50 RAG systems. Humans score about 56% on the joint score, and long-context models without retrieval scored under 20%. The paper has 87 HF upvotes.
- Made by
- Salesforce AI Research
- Released
- July 2024
- Kind
- Reasoning over long documents
- Level
- University
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- Claude 3 Opus #172 on the capability index
- Last model added
- March 2024
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
LLMs and RAG systems are now capable of handling millions of input tokens or more. However, evaluating the output quality of such systems on long-context tasks remains challenging, as tasks like Needle-in-a-Haystack lack complexity. In this work, we argue that summarization can play a central role in such evaluation. We design a procedure to synthesize Haystacks of documents, ensuring that specific insights repeat across documents. The "Summary of a Haystack" (SummHay) task then requires a system to process the Haystack and generate, given a query, a summary that identifies the relevant insights and precisely cites the source documents. Since we have precise knowledge of what insights should appear in a haystack summary and what documents should be cited, we implement a highly reproducible automatic evaluation that can score summaries on two aspects - Coverage and Citation. We generate Haystacks in two domains (conversation, news), and perform a large-scale evaluation of 10 LLMs and corresponding 50 RAG systems. Our findings indicate that SummHay is an open challenge for current systems, as even systems provided with an Oracle signal of document relevance lag our estimate of human performance (56%) by 10+ points on a Joint Score. Without a retriever, long-context LLMs like GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus score below 20% on SummHay. We show SummHay can also be used to study enterprise RAG systems and position bias in long-context models. We hope future systems can equal and surpass human performance on SummHay.
Gemini-1.5-pro (snapshot unspecified) tops the leaderboard with 44.6%
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. The best model we track is Claude 3 Opus, at 42.5%.
The newest model with a score here came out in March 2024, 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
- 44.6 Gemini-1.5-pro (snapshot unspecified)
- 43.4 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified)
- 42.5 Claude 3 Opus
- 41.2 Claude 3 Sonnet
- 38.3 Command-r + (paper 2024 snapshot)
- 34.9 Gemini-1.5-flash (snapshot unspecified)
- 33.9 Command-r (paper 2024 snapshot)
- 28.9 GPT4-turbo (snapshot unspecified)
- 26.8 Claude 3 Haiku
- 13.2 GPT3.5 (snapshot unspecified)
- 1 Gemini-1.5-pro (snapshot unspecified) oracle retrieval 44.6%
- 2 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) oracle retrieval 43.4%
- 3 Claude 3 Opus oracle retrieval 42.5%
- 4 Claude 3 Sonnet oracle retrieval 41.2%
- 5 Command-r + (paper 2024 snapshot) oracle retrieval 38.3%
- 6 Gemini-1.5-flash (snapshot unspecified) oracle retrieval 34.9%
- 7 Command-r (paper 2024 snapshot) oracle retrieval 33.9%
- 8 GPT4-turbo (snapshot unspecified) oracle retrieval 28.9%
- 9 Claude 3 Haiku oracle retrieval 26.8%
- 10 GPT3.5 (snapshot unspecified) oracle retrieval 13.2%
Source: Official Summary of a Haystack leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gemini-1.5-pro (snapshot unspecified) | 44.6% | oracle retrieval | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) | 43.4% | oracle retrieval | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Claude 3 Opus | 42.5% | oracle retrieval | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude 3 Sonnet | 41.2% | oracle retrieval | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Command-r + (paper 2024 snapshot) | 38.3% | oracle retrieval | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Gemini-1.5-flash (snapshot unspecified) | 34.9% | oracle retrieval | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | Command-r (paper 2024 snapshot) | 33.9% | oracle retrieval | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | GPT4-turbo (snapshot unspecified) | 28.9% | oracle retrieval | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | Claude 3 Haiku | 26.8% | oracle retrieval | Mar 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | GPT3.5 (snapshot unspecified) | 13.2% | oracle retrieval | Official leaderboard |
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 Summary of a Haystack leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude 3 Opus | oracle retrieval | 42.5% | |||
| Claude 3 Sonnet | oracle retrieval | 41.2% | |||
| Claude 3 Opus | Cohere Rerank 3 retrieval | 31.9% | |||
| Claude 3 Sonnet | Cohere Rerank 3 retrieval | 31.4% | |||
| Claude 3 Opus | keyword retrieval | 28.6% | |||
| Claude 3 Sonnet | keyword retrieval | 28.5% | |||
| Claude 3 Sonnet | LongEmbed retrieval | 27.2% | |||
| Claude 3 Haiku | oracle retrieval | 26.8% | |||
| Claude 3 Opus | LongEmbed retrieval | 26.7% | |||
| Claude 3 Opus | vector retrieval | 26.5% | |||
| Claude 3 Sonnet | vector retrieval | 26.1% | |||
| Claude 3 Haiku | Cohere Rerank 3 retrieval | 20.1% | |||
| Claude 3 Sonnet | full context | 18.3% | |||
| Claude 3 Opus | full context | 18% | |||
| Claude 3 Haiku | keyword retrieval | 17.7% | |||
| Claude 3 Haiku | vector retrieval | 17.4% | |||
| Claude 3 Haiku | LongEmbed retrieval | 17.2% | |||
| Claude 3 Opus | random retrieval | 11.1% | |||
| Claude 3 Sonnet | random retrieval | 11% | |||
| Claude 3 Haiku | full context | 9.20% | |||
| Claude 3 Haiku | random retrieval | 7.10% |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official Summary of a Haystack 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 Summary of a Haystack 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 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%
- CL-bench In use Model must learn new knowledge from a supplied long context (rules, procedures, data) and solve tasks. Strict LLM-verified rubrics. GPT-5.4 27.9%
- 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%