Ongoing
Runs are still going and the numbers below are a checkpoint, not a final result.
ProgramBench is hard enough that single-shot numbers are close to the floor, which makes it an unusually clean instrument for measuring a loop.
| Solved | |
|---|---|
| Opus-4.8, on its own | 0% |
| GPT-5.5, on its own | 0.5% |
| Humanize — Opus-4.8 building, GPT-5.5 reviewing | 3.5% |
| Reported state of the art (Opus-5) | 4.5% |
Two models that solve almost nothing separately solve seven times the better one's share when they are arranged as a builder and an independent reviewer inside a Ralph loop. Across tasks, the loop averages a 14.2% improvement over the single-shot baseline.
The part that bothers us
Performance was still rising at roughly 1.2% per round in the later rounds when the runs were cut off.
That is not a result, it is a missing one. The runs are constrained by a four-hour time budget rather than by having converged, so what we have measured is partly the budget rather than the method. The honest statement is: this is the number at four hours, the slope at four hours is positive, and we do not yet know where it goes.
Which is the sort of thing FlowBench exists to stop us from guessing at.