Muse Glimmer Lags in Agentic Evals, but Leads in Tool Use and Hallucination Control
ArtificialAnlys · x · 2026-08-11
According to Artificial Analysis, Muse Glimmer's gaps against its class primarily concentrate in agentic evaluations. It scores 953 Elo on GDPval-AA v2, trailing Qwen3.6 27B (1141), Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (1141), and Kimi K2.5 (1004). It also falls behind on Terminal-Bench v2.1 (52% vs. Qwen's 61%).
However, the model excels in hallucination control, scoring 82% on AA-Omniscience compared to 49% for Qwen3.6 27B and 34% for Flash-Lite (lower is better). Furthermore, in agentic tool use, Muse Glimmer scores strongly on Tau3-Banking at 24%, significantly beating Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (18%) and Qwen3.6 27B (17%). It outperforms its size-twin Gemma 4 31B across all these measures.
More from Models
- Meta Open-Sources Muse Glimmer, a 30B Agentic Model — TimDarcet · 2026-08-11
- Muse Glimmer Benchmarks: Scores 35, Beating Llama 4 — teortaxesTex · 2026-08-11
- Polymarket Bets 70% Chance Anthropic Releases New Mythos Model Next Month — Polymarket · 2026-08-11
- Unreleased Claude Tackles Riemann Hypothesis, Raising Zero Bound to 67.2% — inductionheads · 2026-08-11
- Scholar Asks: Why Does ChatGPT Keep Inventing Jargon in Math Proofs? — roydanroy · 2026-08-11
- Claude Easily Identifies Its Own Output; AI Watermarking May Become Industry Standard — signulll · 2026-08-11