Meta / Llama

Meta has released Muse Spark 1.3, their fourth Muse Spark model release in five months. Muse Spark 1.3 (max), which is in limited preview for Meta’s partners, scores 62 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, behind only Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 5. The variant available now, Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh), scores 61 and ties with GPT-5.6 Sol (max) and Grok 4.6 (high). Both variants’ gains come primarily from improvements in agentic work and scientific capabilities Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) enters the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at 61, up 4 points from Muse Spark 1.2 (57, August) and 8 points from Muse Spark 1.1 (53, July). It enters tied with GPT-5.6 Sol (max), Grok 4.6 (high), and Claude Opus 5 (high), and behind Claude Fable 5.1 (max, 66), Claude Opus 5 (max, 63), and Claude Fable 5 (max, 62) Muse Spark 1.3 (max), which is in a limited preview stage, lands at 62. This higher index score is enabled by gains vs. Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) in Tau3-Bench Banking (52% vs. 47%) and GDPval-AA v2 (1,754 Elo vs. 1,709). Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is second only to Claude’s Fable and Opus variants in total score Congratulations to @AIatMeta, @finkd, and @alexandr_wang on the release! Key Takeaways: ➤ Continued improvement on agentic knowledge work tasks. At the launch of Muse Spark 1.2, we noted its significant gains in agentic knowledge work performance vs. Muse Spark 1.1. The latest iteration continues this trend, with Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) demonstrating a notable 12-point gain vs. Muse Spark 1.2 in Tau3-Bench Banking (35% to 47%), a 5-point gain in Terminal-Bench 2.1 (80% to 85%), and a new GDPval-AA v2 Elo of 1709 against its predecessor’s 1615. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) improves further on Tau3-Bench Banking (52%) and GDPval-AA v2 (1,754 Elo). This Tau3-Bench Banking score is #1 among all models. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) achieves these higher agentic work scores by using more turns and total reasoning tokens, reasoning 62% more on GDPval-AA v2 and 28% more on Tau3-Bench Banking compared to Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) ➤ The lowest cost per task for any model at 59+ on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) costs $0.55 per Intelligence Index task at Meta's unchanged $1.25/$4.25 per 1M token pricing ($0.15 for cached input), with its peers GPT-5.6 Sol (max) and Grok 4.6 (high) costing $0.95 and $0.94 respectively, a 70%+ premium. This places Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) on the Pareto frontier for Intelligence vs. Cost per Task. Its cost per task is higher than Muse Spark 1.2 ($0.40 per task), driven by ~57% more input tokens per task on agentic evaluations, with output tokens up only ~8%. Pricing for Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is not yet publicly available ➤ Scientific Reasoning results rose across the board, led by CritPt. CritPt was the standout non-agentic score gain vs. Muse Spark 1.2, with a material +8 points for the xhigh variant (18% to 26%), and GPQA Diamond achieved +4 points (90% to 94%), while Humanity’s Last Exam and SciCode each gained a more modest 2-3 points (45% to 47% and 56% to 59%, respectively). Muse Spark 1.3 (max) achieved roughly similar scores to the xhigh variant, gaining 2 points in Humanity’s Last Exam, tying on GPQA Diamond, and losing a point on CritPt vs. Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) ➤ Minor regressions in only two evaluations. Both Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) dropped 4 points in AA-LCR (83% to 79%) when compared to Muse Spark 1.2, and AA-Omniscience (Accuracy) fell 3 points for xhigh and 1 point for max. The drops in AA-Omniscience (Accuracy) are due to a higher abstention rate (not answering questions when unsure), which also lowered the hallucination rate for Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) Other model details (xhigh variant): ➤ Context window: 1M tokens, unchanged from Muse Spark 1.2 ➤ Pricing: unchanged from Muse Spark 1.2: $1.25/$4.25 per 1M input/output tokens, with cache hits discounted to $0.15 per 1M ➤ Input modalities: text, image, video ➤ Availability: Meta's first-party API and Muse Code

Muse Spark 1.3 is rolling out today with frontier performance almost too cheap to meter. This is the biggest jump we've made so far on coding and agentic work. Try it in Muse Code and our API. Next up 🍉 and Muse Spark open weights releases coming soon. https://t.co/XQQEDEJGD7

Muse Code is out of beta and now built to handle bigger, more complex engineering tasks. Developers can get started with one command today: curl -fsSL https://t.co/0RApZrEJMv | bash

Over the weekend I had Codex parse 500K arXiv AI/ML papers since ChatGPT to understand which open models are used for research. In 2024, ~30% of papers mentioned an American open model and only 10% a Chinese model. Today, ~40% of papers mention a Chinese (open) LLM, and only 25-30% an American one. Chinese models are the default for research. Chinese mentions are still growing while American open models are stagnating. When looking at this data it's important to remember that papers substantially lag model releases, as research takes a long time. Qwen's steady growth is reflective of this, but so is Llama's lasting power. Some more observations: 1. Qwen has been steadily growing, and today 1/3 of papers which mention any LLM mention qwen. OpenAI's closed models are the highest overall, at ~37%. 2. Llama peaked around April of 2025 at 30% of papers which mention any LLM (including ChatGPT etc). Llama 4 was released at about the same time, and Llama has been declining since. 3. Gemini and Claude are less common than the leading open models, mentioned in 10-15% of papers puts them behind all of Qwen, Llama, and DeepSeek. Open models should be and are the foundations of open research. The % of papers mentioning any LLM have been steadily climbing since 2023. | Year | January | April | July | October | | 2023 | 10.43% | 15.39% | 18.69% | 32.18% | | 2024 | 29.70% | 33.93% | 35.70% | 44.25% | | 2025 | 39.23% | 45.28% | 44.94% | 53.52% | | 2026 | 55.49% | 57.26% | 53.14% | TBD Now over 50% of AI papers, from 10% in 2023. Other notes: - Gemma and Mistral hover around 5-10%. - Our beloved fully-open Olmo models have been ~1% since the first release in Jan. 2024. - DeepSeek has a clear jump after R1 in Jan. 2025 - Data derived from the most popular ML arXiv categories: cs. AI, cs. CL, cs. CV, cs. LG, stat. ML Just like our downloads and derivative model data, this is updated daily on the Interconnects Open Model Dashboard.