Measuring Model Performance on Scientific Requests
Listen to the summary
Uses a voice available on your device
Audio options
On this page 5 sections
Related concepts 2 concepts
Key Takeaways
- Models frequently fail to produce output files, with 47.9% of 1,602 runs failing to generate any file on disk.
- Across all 39,934 judgments, 47.6% of responses failed to meet the 8-point rubric threshold.
- Communication skills consistently outperformed scientific accuracy, with average scores of 7.33 and 6.22 respectively.
- Overclaiming is the most common error, identified as a failure tag in 31.4% of assessments.
- The best-performing model, gpt-5.6-sol, achieved a mean score of 8.04 out of 10.
Summary & Methodology Analysis
K-Bench 01 evaluates nine frontier models using 178 first-turn scientific requests sampled directly from live user traffic on the K-Dense Web platform. The execution process involved running each task end-to-end in isolated sandboxes. The authors conducted 1,602 total runs to observe how these models interact with tools such as shell access, file read/write/edit, web search, and content fetch. The evaluation was performed by a panel of three language models using an eight-dimension rubric. This approach relies on a one-shot execution model where subsequent user turns are discarded to focus on the initial request quality. The performance metric is a holistic score alongside eight specific dimension scores, with the leading model gpt-5.6-sol achieving an average score of 8.04 out of 10 and a 95% bootstrap interval of [7.80, 8.23]. Across the nine tested models, scientific accuracy consistently trailed communication scores, with averages of 6.22 and 7.33 respectively. A significant operational challenge noted is that 767 out of 1,602 runs, or 47.9%, resulted in no output file, indicating high rates of technical failure in agentic workflows. Furthermore, 47.6% of all scored judgments fell below the 8-point threshold on the rubric. The evaluation process is constrained by several factors. There is no human-annotated baseline, meaning the absolute calibration of the rubric is unknown. The judging panel is self-referential because two of the three judges are also among the models being evaluated. Additionally, the task set is private and will not be released, which limits external reproducibility of the results.
Interactive System Flowchart
Illustrative Implementation
A short sketch of the paper's core idea, not the authors' own code.
# Illustrative sketch (not from the paper)
import torch
# 178 first‑turn scientific requests sampled from live traffic
requests = [f"req_{i}" for i in range(178)]
# Nine frontier models evaluated in identical sandboxes
models = [
"gpt-5.6-sol",
"claude-opus-5",
"gpt-5.6-luna",
"kimi-k3",
"grok-4.5",
"gemini-3.6-flash",
"muse-spark-1.2",
"gemma-4-31b-it",
"nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b",
]
# Three identity‑blinded LLM judges
judges = ["gpt-5.6-sol", "qwen3.8-max", "grok-4.5"]
# Containers for per‑run scores
scores = {m: [] for m in models}
def run_model(model, request):
"""Execute a request end‑to‑end in a sandbox (placeholder)."""
# Simulate whether an output file was produced
output_file = bool(torch.rand(1) > 0.5)
return {"output_file": output_file, "transcript": "…"}
def judge_output(judge, artifact):
"""Apply the eight‑dimension rubric and return a 0‑10 score (placeholder)."""
return torch.rand(1).item() * 10
# 1,602 total runs (178 requests × 9 models)
for req in requests:
for m in models:
artifact = run_model(m, req)
# Each judge scores the run independently
run_scores = [judge_output(j, artifact) for j in judges]
overall = sum(run_scores) / len(run_scores)
scores[m].append(overall)
# Compute mean overall score per model (e.g., gpt-5.6-sol ≈ 8.04)
mean_scores = {m: sum(s) / len(s) for m, s in scores.items()}
print(mean_scores)
// Illustrative sketch (not from the paper)
const crypto = require('crypto'); // for pseudo‑randomness
// 178 first‑turn scientific requests sampled from live traffic
const requests = Array.from({ length: 178 }, (_, i) => `req_${i}`);
// Nine frontier models evaluated in identical sandboxes
const models = [
'gpt-5.6-sol',
'claude-opus-5',
'gpt-5.6-luna',
'kimi-k3',
'grok-4.5',
'gemini-3.6-flash',
'muse-spark-1.2',
'gemma-4-31b-it',
'nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b',
];
// Three identity‑blinded LLM judges
const judges = ['gpt-5.6-sol', 'qwen3.8-max', 'grok-4.5'];
// Containers for per‑run scores
const scores = {};
models.forEach(m => (scores[m] = []));
function runModel(model, request) {
// Placeholder sandbox execution; returns dummy artifact
const outputFile = Math.random() > 0.5;
return { outputFile, transcript: '…' };
}
function judgeOutput(judge, artifact) {
// Placeholder rubric returning a 0‑10 score
return Math.random() * 10;
}
// 1,602 total runs (178 requests × 9 models)
for (const req of requests) {
for (const m of models) {
const artifact = runModel(m, req);
const runScores = judges.map(j => judgeOutput(j, artifact));
const overall = runScores.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0) / runScores.length;
scores[m].push(overall);
}
}
// Compute mean overall score per model (e.g., gpt-5.6-sol ≈ 8.04)
const meanScores = {};
for (const m of models) {
const arr = scores[m];
meanScores[m] = arr.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0) / arr.length;
}
console.log(meanScores);
Cross-Examination & FAQs
A deeper dive clarifying mechanics, constraints, and baseline evaluations.
Q1. What is K-Bench 01?
K-Bench 01 is an evaluation benchmark built from 178 first-turn scientific requests sampled from live user traffic.
Q2. How did the models perform overall?
The best model, gpt-5.6-sol, averaged 8.04 out of 10, though 47.6% of all judgments fell below the 8-point threshold.
Q3. What was the most common error made by the models?
The leading failure tag identified by judges was overclaiming, which appeared on 31.4% of assessments.
Q4. What were the nine models tested in this study?
The models were gpt-5.6-sol, claude-opus-5, gpt-5.6-luna, kimi-k3, grok-4.5, gemini-3.6-flash, muse-spark-1.2, gemma-4-31b-it, and nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b.
Q5. How did the researchers handle multi-turn conversations?
The study used a one-shot execution model, meaning each session was limited to the first user message and attached files, with follow-up turns discarded.
Q6. Are the tasks used for this benchmark publicly available?
No, the task prompts, attachments, transcripts, and output artifacts are private user content and will not be released.
Q7. Was there a human expert involved in scoring the models?
No, there was no human-annotated baseline; the evaluation was conducted by a panel of three language models.
Q8. Are the judges unbiased in their evaluations?
The judging panel is potentially biased because two of the three judges used to score the models are also contestants in the evaluation.
Q9. How many successful file outputs were produced across all runs?
Out of 1,602 runs, 767 runs produced no output file, meaning 47.9% of the attempts failed to generate an artifact.