Benchmark Almanac

MA-Bench

Not in model cards

Models do military mission analysis under the joint planning process on long-context scenarios, graded against expert rubrics.

Dataset created 2026-09-25 under CC BY 4.0.

In the authors’ words

How well can a language model turn a large, incomplete and partly contradictory body of documents into a plan when no single correct answer exists? We introduce Mission Analysis (MA)-Bench, built on mission analysis, the first step of military operational planning, in which a staff reads the full situation and states the problem before anyone proposes a solution. Its 10 expert-built scenarios pair synthetic packets of ten to twelve documents with 1,257 expert-written pass/fail requirements, each containing information on their source, question type, and importance level. A reasoning-model judge grades each brief against the requirements without seeing the documents; it grades like a fifth credentialed planner, leaving a four-planner panel's agreement unchanged (Fleiss κ 0.42 to 0.41), and a judge from a second provider reproduces the model ranking (Spearman 0.94). Across twenty frontier and open-weights models the best gets 62% of the rubric items right. Models are strongest on facts stated in the documents (58%) and weakest on judgments that must be inferred (33%), and six failures in ten are omissions rather than errors. MA-Bench grades the determinations, not the prose. We release the packets, rubrics, prompts, scorer and every graded brief with item-level verdicts.

Abstract of MA-Bench: Measuring Operational Planning in Language Models (arXiv:2610.19138, CC0)
Made by Scale AI (Lafuente-Mercado et al.) Released Oct 2026 Other All tasks public
Level
Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
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.

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for MA-Bench yet.

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Other

All 41 in Other
  • Personal Superintelligence Index (Meta) In use Meta's composite of seven personal and knowledge-work evals: Agents' Last Exam, AutomationBench-AA, FocusBench, JobBench, GDP.pdf, VBT and DRACO.
  • Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5 In use Version 5 of Artificial Analysis's index: nine evaluations in four equal categories, most with private test sets, run three times each in its own agent harness. Gemini 4 Carbon 59.0
  • Anthropic ECI (AECI) Only in system cards Index that combines a basket of capability benchmarks into one capability score to track trends across Anthropic models. Claude Opus 5.5 169.4
  • Qwen in-house English automatic evaluation Only in system cards Models answer Qwen in-house English datasets on knowledge, comprehension, coding, math and related skills. Skills and weights change between reports. Qwen2-72B 72.9%
  • Recognition of model-written user turns (Anthropic) Only in system cards Models write synthetic user turns for real Claude Code transcripts, then judge which version is real. Score is accuracy above chance. Claude Mythos Preview 0.35
  • LiveBench Dropped Models answer monthly refreshed questions across math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis. Scored automatically against objective ground truth. Claude Fable 5.1 85.7%