WitnessBench
Agents play unseen line-puzzle games in the style of The Witness without being told the rules. They must discover rules by experiment and apply them to harder levels.
26 games with 20 levels each. Each solved level is scored against the shortest solution the game accepts. 13 models in the Fireworks index.
- Made by
- Fleet AI
- Released
- September 2026
- Kind
- Puzzles and chess
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- Claude Opus 5.5 #4 on the capability index
- Last model added
- September 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Automated science needs agents that can work out the rules of an unfamiliar environment by interacting with it. Interactive rule-discovery puzzles offer a controlled setting for studying this ability: an agent infers hidden rules through experimentation and uses what it has inferred to reach a stated goal. We ask what limits current language models on these puzzles and whether reinforcement learning (RL) improves performance on rules held out from training. To study both, we introduce WITNESS, a 2D grid-based puzzle environment with ground-truth ASCII observations and controlled access to rules. An agentic pipeline generates games for WitnessGym, the RL training suite, and WitnessBench, comprising public validation and private test games. The validation set separately tests new compositions of trained rule primitives and primitives absent from training. Under a shared harness, the best of 18 frontier proprietary and open-weight models solves only 24% of private test level slots, with scores sensitive to the observation interface and agent configuration. Providing ground-truth rules raises Opus-5's validation RHAE-L5 (relative human action efficiency over the first five levels) from 59.9 to 97.8, whereas a 27B open-weight model gains only 2.1 points and remains limited even with the rules provided. RL on WitnessGym raises the 27B model's private test RHAE-L5 from 2.1 to 5.4 and yields a mean gain of 4.1 points on four external discovery benchmarks. Together, these results point to rule acquisition as a major difficulty for frontier models like Opus-5 while smaller models further struggle on rule-based execution, and indicate that RL on hidden-rule puzzles transfers to broader rules and real-world tasks beyond training. Benchmark is available at: https://witnessbench.ai
Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 46.5%
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.
- 1 Claude Opus 5.5 max 46.5%
- 2 GPT-6 Astra Pro max 25.6%
- 3 GPT-6.1 Sol Pro max 21.7%
- 4 Kimi K3 max 18.8%
- 5
Gemini 4 Argon high 17.9%
- 6 GLM-5.3 max 16.6%
- 7 Grok 4.7 xhigh 14.8%
- 8
Gemini 3.8 Flash high 6.70%
- 9
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 max 5.50%
- 10
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B xhigh 5.00%
- 11
Qwen 3.8 27B xhigh 3.10%
- 12
Muse Glimmer xhigh 0.21%
- 13
Qwen3.5-9B max 0.11%
Source: Official WitnessBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 46.5% | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-6 Astra Pro | 25.6% | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GPT-6.1 Sol Pro | 21.7% | max | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Kimi K3 | 18.8% | max | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 17.9% | high | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | GLM-5.3 | 16.6% | max | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Grok 4.7 | 14.8% | xhigh | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | | 6.70% | high | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 5.50% | max | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 5.00% | xhigh | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 3.10% | xhigh | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 0.21% | xhigh | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 0.11% | max | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Model Evals, LLM calls view
Each point is one model: its OAE-L20 score against the LLM calls it makes per game, on a log scale. The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.
| Model | Setting | OAE-L20 | LLM calls per game |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 | max | 46.5 | 69.9 |
| GPT-6 Astra Pro | max | 25.6 | 73.4 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol Pro | max | 21.7 | 70.33 |
| Kimi K3 | max | 18.8 | 50.35 |
| | high | 17.9 | 66.51 |
| GLM-5.3 | max | 16.6 | 96.19 |
| Grok 4.7 | xhigh | 14.8 | 59.37 |
| | high | 6.7 | 60.96 |
| | max | 5.5 | 60.17 |
| | xhigh | 5 | 54.65 |
| | xhigh | 3.1 | 48.27 |
| | xhigh | 0.21 | 62.87 |
| | max | 0.11 | 55.56 |
The best score, 46.5%, costs $85 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Source: Official WitnessBench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 | max | 46.5% | $85 | 4,208,380 | |
| GPT-6 Astra Pro | max | 25.6% | $59 | 936,177 | |
| Kimi K3 | max | 18.8% | $27 | 1,698,056 | |
| | high | 17.9% | $18 | 1,734,406 | |
| GLM-5.3 | max | 16.6% | $33 | 7,504,623 | |
| Grok 4.7 | xhigh | 14.8% | $21 | 3,366,143 | |
| | high | 6.70% | $7.41 | 1,942,072 | |
| | max | 5.50% | $9.32 | 1,966,662 | |
| | xhigh | 5.00% | $11 | 1,765,034 | |
| | xhigh | 3.10% | $3.96 | 1,794,946 | |
| | xhigh | 0.21% | $2.14 | 1,395,267 | |
| | max | 0.11% | $0.06 | 234,040 |
3 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in September 2026
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official WitnessBench 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 WitnessBench 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 Games and long tasks
- ARC-AGI-3 In use Interactive game environments where agents must explore, infer goals and rules, and act efficiently without instructions. GPT-6 Astra 99.95%
- Orak Fading LLM agents play 12 popular video games across most genres through an MCP interface. Each game scores in-game progress or outcomes, and the board ranks models by their average rank across the games.
Gemini 2.5 Pro 3.90
- MineDojo Fading Agents complete open-ended tasks in Minecraft, such as mining blocks and fighting mobs, from a large simulation suite. Programmatic checks score many tasks.
Seed2.0 Pro 49%
- TextQuests Only in system cards Agents play 25 classic interactive fiction games. The score is harmful actions per 100 steps, where lower is better. The board also reports game progress.
Llama 4 Scout 7.00
- GameWorld Only in system cards Multimodal game agents play 34 browser games across 170 tasks. Outcomes are checked from the game state. GPT-6.1 Terra 76.8%
- Swarm Bench Only in system cards Models orchestrate agent swarms on complex tasks that benefit from coordinated decomposition and parallel execution. Kimi K3 76.3%