Benchmark Almanac

CIMemories

Muse Glimmer 26.4% leads since Aug 2026 In use

Models use persistent memory across tasks and must withhold attributes when context requires. Reports worst-case disclosure over five samples.

Contextual privacy benchmark. Meta reports violations@5 and completeness.

In the authors’ words

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly use persistent memory from past interactions to enhance personalization and task performance. However, this memory introduces critical risks when sensitive information is revealed in inappropriate contexts. We present CIMemories, a benchmark for evaluating whether LLMs appropriately control information flow from memory based on task context. CIMemories uses synthetic user profiles with over 100 attributes per user, paired with diverse task contexts in which each attribute may be essential for some tasks but inappropriate for others. Our evaluation reveals that frontier models exhibit up to 69% attribute-level violations (leaking information inappropriately), with lower violation rates often coming at the cost of task utility. Violations accumulate across both tasks and runs: as usage increases from 1 to 40 tasks, GPT-5's violations rise from 0.1% to 9.6%, reaching 25.1% when the same prompt is executed 5 times, revealing arbitrary and unstable behavior in which models leak different attributes for identical prompts. Privacy-conscious prompting does not solve this - models overgeneralize, sharing everything or nothing rather than making nuanced, context-dependent decisions. These findings reveal fundamental limitations that require contextually aware reasoning capabilities, not just better prompting or scaling.

Abstract of CIMemories: A Compositional Benchmark for Contextual Integrity of Persistent Memory in LLMs (arXiv:2511.14937, CC0)
Made by Meta (Mireshghallah et al.) Released Nov 2025 Refusing harmful requests All tasks public Last in a launch post Aug 2026 Last model added Oct 2026
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
Scored
Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
Answers
Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
2
Models scored in lab cards
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
2
System cards report it, from 1 lab

Muse Glimmer leads with 26.4%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 Muse Glimmer 26.4%
  2. 2 Muse Spark 78.3%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Muse Glimmer 26.4% Aug 2026 Model card
2 Muse Spark 78.3% Jun 2026 Model card

2 models have held number one since its release in Nov 2025

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Meta
Lab claims 2 leaders
Muse Glimmer 26.4%

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Muse Glimmer Muse Spark 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Muse Glimmer Muse Spark

One lab 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.

Meta
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
10 Aug 2026 Muse Glimmer 26.4 CI Memories Violation 26.4 (lower is better), Coverage 64.8

2 system cards report it, from 1 lab

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
19 Oct 2026 Muse Glimmer technical report 26.4 CIMemories violation, lower is better, coverage 64.8, high (Tables 2 and 5) Safety
12 Jun 2026 Muse Spark system card 78.3 CIMemories violations@5 (Figure 48) Safety

More in Safety and alignment

All 444 in Safety and alignment
  • FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
  • StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is. Inkling 98.6%
  • AgentDojo In use Agents do tool-use tasks while tools and data carry prompt injections. Attack success rate counts hijacked runs. Grok 4 Fast 0%
  • MASK In use Measures whether a model contradicts its own elicited beliefs under pressure to lie. Honesty separated from accuracy. Muse Spark Open 98.1%
  • Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts. GPT-6 Astra 8.50%
  • Agentic misalignment suite (Anthropic) In use Agents in simulated company settings face threats or goal conflicts that invite blackmail, leaking or sabotage. Score is the misaligned action rate. Claude Sonnet 4.5 0%