aiqbench takeAI Products

This benchmark analysis reveals a nuanced performance landscape where Opus 5.5 leads in overall trajectory completion but exhibits specific edge-case failures, while Opus 5 demonstrates superior reasoning capabilities that Fable 5.1 lacks. The data highlights distinct failure modes across model generations, with Opus 5's primary weaknesses rooted in faulty inference rather than operational execution, offering critical insights for developers optimizing coding agents.

Sources coveringSnorkel AI Blog, LessWrong, Quantum Zeitgeist, Interconnects

What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Opus 5.5 vs Opus 5 vs Fable 5.1: Coding Benchmark Results

Snorkel AI BlogSeptember 23, 20265 min read

We’ve now run three generations of frontier models through the same expert-created terminal-bench style task set: Fable 5.1 in September, Opus 5 in July, and, now Opus 5.5. For this analysis, the task set contained 200 trajectories, of 24 tasks, with every failure traced to a judge-confirmed root cause. A generational climb On the task set, pass@1 is 61.5% for... The post Opus 5.5 vs Opus 5 vs Fable 5.1: Coding Benchmark Results appeared first on Snorkel AI.

We’ve now run three generations of frontier models through the same expert-created terminal-bench style task set: Fable 5.1 in September, Opus 5 in July, and, now Opus 5.5. For this analysis, the task set contained 200 trajectories, of 24 tasks, with every failure traced to a judge-confirmed root cause. On the task set, pass@1 is 61.5% for Fable 5.1, 60.7% for Opus 5, and 60.7% for Opus 5.5. This is a flattening out of this score across the last two generations, with Fable 5.1 nominally higher than…

Excerpt shown under the publisher's RSS terms · 87 words · full text and figures are on the publisher's site

Read at Snorkel AI Blog ↗Ask about this article