Collaborative Intelligence Benchmark
A model works in a team with scripted teammates and live model partners, and a teammate creates a test: pressure to take an unsafe shortcut, misconduct to report, a need nobody states, a conflict, or a cheat that a weaker model left behind. The 240 tasks across 8 dimensions of teamwork come from real records, such as aviation accident reports and clinical cases, and from existing benchmarks, such as SWE-bench and negotiation datasets. Each task has a checkable outcome. A model is scored only on the tasks it solves alone, so the score measures teamwork, not ability.
160 tasks are public and 80 are held out. Models almost always refuse unsafe shortcuts, but they reach the best deal in only 14% of conflicts.
- Released
- November 2026
- Kind
- Multi-agent games
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- Public, plus a private test set
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
- Last model added
- October 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Progress in AI is often measured by what a single model can do on its own. Yet teams of AI agents are starting to make breakthroughs and discoveries in science, medicine, mathematics and software engineering. As AI begins to work in teams of agents and people, the ability to collaborate becomes a core part of their intelligence. Research on human teams has measured this ability for decades. Inspired by this, we introduce the Collaborative Intelligence Benchmark, which measures how well an AI agent works as a teammate. It contains 240 tasks across 8 dimensions of teamwork, from refusing an unsafe shortcut to checking the work that a weaker model leaves behind. Each task comes from a real record or an existing benchmark, from aviation accident reports and clinical cases to coding tasks and negotiations, and has a programmatically verifiable outcome. To isolate teamwork from individual capability, models are scored only on tasks that they can solve by themselves when they have full information. We evaluate 18 closed- and open-weight models and find that every model, across sizes and families, has clear weaknesses as a teammate, with the best model scoring only 82.2 out of 100. Frontier models almost always refuse unsafe shortcuts and report misconduct, yet they cave under interpersonal pressure, reaching the best overall deal in only 14% of conflicts, and their pass rate drops from 97% to 81% when they take over a task in which a weaker model has cheated. Crucially, general capability does not guarantee good teamwork, as models with nearly the same capability score differ by up to 11 points as teammates. The benchmark includes 160 public tasks with code and data, along with 80 held-out tasks for evaluation. As AI agents increasingly work alongside other agents and people, the ability to collaborate effectively is becoming a crucial capability to measure and develop.
Gemini 4 Argon leads with 82.2%
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. Every run is in the next chart.
- 82.2
Gemini 4 Argon
- 79.4 GPT-6 Astra
- 78.7 GPT-6.1 Sol
- 76.8 Claude Opus 5.5
- 67.9 Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 65.3 Claude Fable 5.1
- 59.9 Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 55.6 Grok 4.7
- 51.8 Claude Haiku 5.5
- 51.5
Gemini 3.8 Flash
- 50.8
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 45.9 Kimi K3
- 45.8 GLM-5.3
- 44.5
Mistral Large 4
- 43.4 GPT-6 Luna
- 39.4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 30.6
Nemotron 3 Ultra
- 19.1 gpt-oss-120b
- 1
Gemini 4 Argon v4.0.0; high reasoning effort 82.2%
- 2 GPT-6 Astra v4.0.0; high reasoning effort 79.4%
- 3 GPT-6.1 Sol v4.0.0; high reasoning effort 78.7%
- 4 Claude Opus 5.5 v4.0.0; high reasoning effort 76.8%
- 5 Claude Sonnet 5.5 v4.0.0; high reasoning effort 67.9%
- 6 Claude Fable 5.1 v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 65.3%
- 7 Kimi K3.1 Pro v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 59.9%
- 8 Grok 4.7 v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 55.6%
- 9 Claude Haiku 5.5 v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 51.8%
- 10
Gemini 3.8 Flash v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 51.5%
- 11
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 50.8%
- 12 Kimi K3 v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 45.9%
- 13 GLM-5.3 v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 45.8%
- 14
Mistral Large 4 v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 44.5%
- 15 GPT-6 Luna v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 43.4%
- 16
DeepSeek-V4-Pro v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 39.4%
- 17
Nemotron 3 Ultra v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 30.6%
- 18 gpt-oss-120b v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort 19.1%
Source: Official Collaborative Intelligence Benchmark leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 82.2% | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-6 Astra | 79.4% | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GPT-6.1 Sol | 78.7% | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 76.8% | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 67.9% | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude Fable 5.1 | 65.3% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | 59.9% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Grok 4.7 | 55.6% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | 51.8% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 51.5% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 50.8% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | Kimi K3 | 45.9% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | GLM-5.3 | 45.8% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 44.5% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | GPT-6 Luna | 43.4% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 39.4% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | | 30.6% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | gpt-oss-120b | 19.1% | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | Aug 2025 | 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 Collaborative Intelligence Benchmark leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | 82.2% | |||
| GPT-6 Astra | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | 79.4% | |||
| GPT-6.1 Sol | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | 78.7% | |||
| Claude Opus 5.5 | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | 76.8% | |||
| | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 76.6% | |||
| GPT-6 Astra | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 76.5% | |||
| GPT-6.1 Sol | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 74.5% | |||
| Claude Opus 5.5 | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 71% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | 67.9% | |||
| Claude Fable 5.1 | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 65.3% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 65.2% | |||
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 59.9% | |||
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | v4.0.0; high reasoning effort | 56.1% | |||
| Grok 4.7 | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 55.6% | |||
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 51.8% | |||
| | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 51.5% | |||
| | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 50.8% | |||
| Kimi K3 | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 45.9% | |||
| GLM-5.3 | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 45.8% | |||
| | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 44.5% | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 43.4% | |||
| | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 39.4% | |||
| | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 30.6% | |||
| gpt-oss-120b | v4.0.0; minimum reasoning effort | 19.1% |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official Collaborative Intelligence Benchmark 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 Collaborative Intelligence Benchmark 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%