Benchmark Almanac

WitnessBench

Claude Opus 5.5 46.5% leads since September 2026
Not in model cards

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

Abstract of Witness: Discovery, Deciphering, and Epiphany in Interactive Puzzle Environments (arXiv:2609.32208, CC0)
13
Entries on its own leaderboard, 12 models we track

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. 1 Claude Opus 5.5 max 46.5%
  2. 2 GPT-6 Astra Pro max 25.6%
  3. 3 GPT-6.1 Sol Pro max 21.7%
  4. 4 Kimi K3 max 18.8%
  5. 5 Gemini 4 Argon high 17.9%
  6. 6 GLM-5.3 max 16.6%
  7. 7 Grok 4.7 xhigh 14.8%
  8. 8 Gemini 3.8 Flash high 6.70%
  9. 9 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 max 5.50%
  10. 10 Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B xhigh 5.00%
  11. 11 Qwen 3.8 27B xhigh 3.10%
  12. 12 Muse Glimmer xhigh 0.21%
  13. 13 Qwen3.5-9B max 0.11%

Source: Official WitnessBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
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 Gemini 4 Argon 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 Gemini 3.8 Flash 6.70% high Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
9 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 5.50% max Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B 5.00% xhigh Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Qwen 3.8 27B 3.10% xhigh Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Muse Glimmer 0.21% xhigh Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen3.5-9B 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.

0 10 20 30 40 50 102050100 LLM calls per game, log scale, lower is better OAE-L20 Qwen3.5-9B (max): OAE-L20 0.11, llm calls per game 55.6 Muse Glimmer (xhigh): OAE-L20 0.21, llm calls per game 62.9 Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B (xhigh): OAE-L20 5, llm calls per game 54.7 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max): OAE-L20 5.5, llm calls per game 60.2 GLM-5.3 (max): OAE-L20 16.6, llm calls per game 96.2 Gemini 3.8 Flash (high): OAE-L20 6.7, llm calls per game 61 GPT-6 Astra Pro (max): OAE-L20 25.6, llm calls per game 73.4 Grok 4.7 (xhigh): OAE-L20 14.8, llm calls per game 59.4 Gemini 4 Argon (high): OAE-L20 17.9, llm calls per game 66.5 GPT-6.1 Sol Pro (max): OAE-L20 21.7, llm calls per game 70.3. Not in our model list Kimi K3 (max): OAE-L20 18.8, llm calls per game 50.3 Qwen 3.8 27B (xhigh): OAE-L20 3.1, llm calls per game 48.3 Claude Opus 5.5 (max): OAE-L20 46.5, llm calls per game 69.9 Claude Opus 5.5 (max)Kimi K3 (max)Qwen 3.8 27B (xhigh) 0 10 20 30 40 50 102050100 LLM calls per game, log scale, lower is better OAE-L20 Qwen3.5-9B (max): OAE-L20 0.11, llm calls per game 55.6 Muse Glimmer (xhigh): OAE-L20 0.21, llm calls per game 62.9 Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B (xhigh): OAE-L20 5, llm calls per game 54.7 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max): OAE-L20 5.5, llm calls per game 60.2 GLM-5.3 (max): OAE-L20 16.6, llm calls per game 96.2 Gemini 3.8 Flash (high): OAE-L20 6.7, llm calls per game 61 GPT-6 Astra Pro (max): OAE-L20 25.6, llm calls per game 73.4 Grok 4.7 (xhigh): OAE-L20 14.8, llm calls per game 59.4 Gemini 4 Argon (high): OAE-L20 17.9, llm calls per game 66.5 GPT-6.1 Sol Pro (max): OAE-L20 21.7, llm calls per game 70.3. Not in our model list Kimi K3 (max): OAE-L20 18.8, llm calls per game 50.3 Qwen 3.8 27B (xhigh): OAE-L20 3.1, llm calls per game 48.3 Claude Opus 5.5 (max): OAE-L20 46.5, llm calls per game 69.9 Claude Opus 5.5 (max)Kimi K3 (max)Qwen 3.8 27B (xhigh)
ModelSettingOAE-L20LLM 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
Gemini 4 Argon high 17.9 66.51
GLM-5.3 max 16.6 96.19
Grok 4.7 xhigh 14.8 59.37
Gemini 3.8 Flash high 6.7 60.96
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 max 5.5 60.17
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B xhigh 5 54.65
Qwen 3.8 27B xhigh 3.1 48.27
Muse Glimmer xhigh 0.21 62.87
Qwen3.5-9B 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.

Qwen Moonshot AI Meta Google DeepMind OpenAI Anthropic Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5.5, max GPT-6 Astra Pro, max Kimi K3, max Gemini 3.8 Flash, high Qwen 3.8 27B, xhigh Muse Glimmer, xhigh Qwen3.5-9B, max 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5.5, max GPT-6 Astra Pro, max

Source: Official WitnessBench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput 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
Gemini 4 Argon 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
Gemini 3.8 Flash high 6.70% $7.41 1,942,072
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 max 5.50% $9.32 1,966,662
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B xhigh 5.00% $11 1,765,034
Qwen 3.8 27B xhigh 3.10% $3.96 1,794,946
Muse Glimmer xhigh 0.21% $2.14 1,395,267
Qwen3.5-9B 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.

Moonshot AI OpenAI Anthropic
Own leaderboard 3 leaders

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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5.5 GPT-6 Astra Pro Kimi K3 Qwen3.5-9B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5.5 GPT-6 Astra Pro

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

All 82 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%