TasteVal
8 AI R&D tasks. Models iteratively design experiments. Taste measured as the compute needed to reach expert-level scores.
Tasks kept private.
In the authors’ words
We introduce TasteVal, a benchmark to evaluate the experimental research taste of frontier models. We define research taste as the ability to pick interesting problems to solve, design experiments, and interpret experimental results. TasteVal measures the experimental component of research taste; given a fixed research problem, we measure how well a model iteratively designs experiments and draws conclusions from their outcomes. We operationalize experimental research taste as compute efficiency; a Researcher who reaches the same score as an expert human using half the serial experimental compute has twice the experimental taste. Experimental taste thus acts as a multiplier on experimental compute, making it a key input to forecasts of AI progress. TasteVal consists of 8 novel, challenging, open-ended tasks representative of frontier AI R&D. To isolate taste from coding ability, the model under evaluation acts as a Researcher that iteratively designs experiments while a fixed Coder agent implements them and reports their results. The Researcher executes until either the 40 H100 hour or 120 wall-clock hour budgets are exhausted. We recruit 24 human experts, at least 2 per task, and take the best expert attempt per task as the expert baseline. We evaluate 20 models released between 2023 and 2026. The best-performing model, Opus 5.5, exceeds our expert baseline, with a compute multiplier of 2.3x (95% CI 1.15-4.37), at roughly 1/30 of our baseliners' average per-run cost. On TasteVal, the compute multiplier of frontier models has doubled approximately every 3.0 months since December 2025 (95% CI 1.7-5.0), up from every 14 months between 2023 and December 2025. Measured by final normalized performance, frontier models show no trend break, doubling every 14.6 months. To keep TasteVal uncontaminated, we do not release the tasks.
- Level
- Research frontier Researchers, on open problems or tasks that take days
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 230.4×
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
- 230.4× Claude Opus 5.5
- 171.6× Claude Fable 5.1
- 160.2× GPT-6 Astra
- 128.6× Claude Opus 5
- 84.2× Claude Opus 4.8
- 59.2× GLM-5.3
- 59.0× GPT-5.6 Sol
- 50.1× Claude Opus 4.7
- 47.0× GPT-5.5
- 45.3× Kimi K3
- 40.4× Claude Opus 4.6
- 27.7× GPT-5.2
- 21.3× GPT-5.4
- 11.8× Claude Opus 4.5
- 11.6× GPT-5
- 8.60× Kimi K2.5
- 8.28× o3
- 6.71× o1
- 5.96× GPT-4o
- 2.72× GPT-4
- 1 Claude Opus 5.5 max 230.4×
- 2 Claude Fable 5.1 max 171.6×
- 3 GPT-6 Astra max 160.2×
- 4 Claude Opus 5 max 128.6×
- 5 Claude Opus 4.8 max 84.2×
- 6 GLM-5.3 max 59.2×
- 7 GPT-5.6 Sol max 59.0×
- 8 Claude Opus 4.7 max 50.1×
- 9 GPT-5.5 xhigh 47.0×
- 10 Kimi K3 reasoning on 45.3×
- 11 Claude Opus 4.6 max 40.4×
- 12 GPT-5.2 high 27.7×
- 13 GPT-5.4 xhigh 21.3×
- 14 Claude Opus 4.5 24k thinking budget 11.8×
- 15 GPT-5 high 11.6×
- 16 Kimi K2.5 max effort, 96k output 8.60×
- 17 o3 high 8.28×
- 18 o1 high 6.71×
- 19 GPT-4o May 2024 5.96×
- 20 GPT-4 Jun 2023 2.72×
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 230.4× | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Claude Fable 5.1 | 171.6× | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GPT-6 Astra | 160.2× | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude Opus 5 | 128.6× | max | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 84.2× | max | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | GLM-5.3 | 59.2× | max | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 59.0× | max | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 50.1× | max | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | GPT-5.5 | 47.0× | xhigh | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | Kimi K3 | 45.3× | reasoning on | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 40.4× | max | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | GPT-5.2 | 27.7× | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | GPT-5.4 | 21.3× | xhigh | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 11.8× | 24k thinking budget | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | GPT-5 | 11.6× | high | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | Kimi K2.5 | 8.60× | max effort, 96k output | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | o3 | 8.28× | high | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | o1 | 6.71× | high | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | GPT-4o May 2024 | 5.96× | May 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | GPT-4 Jun 2023 | 2.72× | Jun 2023 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
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 AI research
- MLS-Bench In use Agent must invent one algorithmic change in an ML research scaffold whose gain transfers across settings. Scored relative to human baselines. Claude Fable 5.1 50.3%
- PaperBench In use Agent replicates ICML 2024 papers from scratch. LLM judge grades against author-written hierarchical rubrics.
Qwen 3.8 Max 93%
- MLE-bench In use Kaggle-style ML engineering competitions. Agent trains models and is scored against competition leaderboards. GPT-6 Astra 93.8%
- PostTrainBench 1.2 In use CLI agent gets a base model, one H100 and a time budget to post-train it for a target benchmark. Scored on normalized gain. Claude Fable 5.1 44.6%
- KernelBench In use Replace PyTorch operators with faster custom GPU kernels. Scored on correctness and speedup.
MiniMax-M3 28.8%
- OpenAI PRs Only in system cards Agents replicate internal OpenAI pull requests from a pre-PR branch and a prompt. Graded by hidden unit tests as pass@1. GPT-5.2 55%