AI EVALUATION, IN CONTEXT.BY EQUALITY MACHINE

Model reports

P-ContextBench

Test whether an assistant can use changing personal evidence and respect individual constraints.

Paper v1 Table 2: primary results are the five all-test-case weighted Overall scores; all task and reliability values remain below.

From remembering facts to acting appropriately

Five tasks test single-source recall, multi-source recall, temporal updates, personal-pattern inference and responses to requests conflicting with personal constraints. This is a response benchmark, not live tool execution.

P-ContextBench paper v1 · P-ContextBench author code and sample pipeline

Synthetic personal histories

The paper uses 100 U.S.-seeded personas, 10,088 hidden facts, 18,261 messenger/calendar fragments and 4,810 verified tests. Logs contain 2.5 filler fragments per evidence fragment and no decoys. Models see complete relevant logs without retrieval.

P-ContextBench paper v1

Mean credit is not repeatable full correctness

A separate LLM judge checks evidence and task-specific requirements. Overall accuracy averages awarded credit; Pass³ requires full credit in all three runs. These metrics must remain separate. Source dates are paper-publication dates, not run timestamps.

P-ContextBench paper v1

Overall accuracy · every task and model

All five systems and every T1–T5 column from Table 2 are retained exactly. Avg. is the authors’ test-count-weighted average across all 4,810 cases.

Paper v1 Table 2 · Overall accuracy (%)
ModelT1T2T3T4T5Avg. · all test cases
GPT-5.4-mini78.9866.2249.0554.8346.0556.25
Gemini-3-Flash89.0974.7450.6854.6954.6361.61
Claude Haiku 4.584.572.750.059.350.860.75
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B75.8757.9939.1747.4535.7248.1
Claude Sonnet 4.694.7886.0372.9074.5364.1675.52

T1 single-source; T2 multi-source; T3 temporal state; T4 personal-pattern inference; T5 constraint-aware responses. Compare the same metric and task; the three tables are different metrics.

P-ContextBench paper v1

Worst-run accuracy · every task and model

All five systems and every T1–T5 column from Table 2 are retained exactly. Avg. is the authors’ test-count-weighted average across all 4,810 cases.

Paper v1 Table 2 · Worst-run accuracy (%)
ModelT1T2T3T4T5Avg. · all test cases
GPT-5.4-mini73.0960.5944.4951.7041.1251.66
Gemini-3-Flash85.6070.5546.4652.0551.4958.27
Claude Haiku 4.584.272.149.658.550.360.19
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B69.6351.9634.1344.2129.6742.96
Claude Sonnet 4.694.1985.1072.7373.3363.0874.62

T1 single-source; T2 multi-source; T3 temporal state; T4 personal-pattern inference; T5 constraint-aware responses. Compare the same metric and task; the three tables are different metrics.

P-ContextBench paper v1

Pass³ accuracy · every task and model

All five systems and every T1–T5 column from Table 2 are retained exactly. Avg. is the authors’ test-count-weighted average across all 4,810 cases.

Paper v1 Table 2 · Pass³ accuracy (%)
ModelT1T2T3T4T5Avg. · all test cases
GPT-5.4-mini50.8922.222.633.370.8511.64
Gemini-3-Flash72.5739.815.725.602.9818.75
Claude Haiku 4.559.328.05.15.50.614.46
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B43.2310.840.600.070.097.57
Claude Sonnet 4.684.8559.0930.8132.354.7634.65

T1 single-source; T2 multi-source; T3 temporal state; T4 personal-pattern inference; T5 constraint-aware responses. Compare the same metric and task; the three tables are different metrics.

P-ContextBench paper v1

Version and reporting limits

Table 2 gives Sonnet 75.52 overall and 34.65 Pass³, while narrative states 75.49 and 34.58; the table is retained without reconciliation. Synthetic U.S.-seeded logs and model judging do not establish reliability for real users.

P-ContextBench paper v1 · P-ContextBench author code and sample pipeline

Original publication

Original versioned paper and author artifacts; publisher-run measurements stay attached to their experimental conditions.

Reviewed 2026-11-02

Evidence available for this benchmark

This source record contains 5 numeric observations. The source distinguishes 5 model identities or configurations. A model may appear more than once; check the version, tools and run budget before comparing. Read results and row-level evidence →

Reported metric
Overall accuracy (all test cases)
Recorded unit
percent
Metric direction
higher is better

Start with these resources

Cited documents and dates (1)

Evaluation context and evidence

Source
Model reports
Publisher
Not recorded
Benchmark release
2026-10-29
Collected
Not recorded
Modality
Not recorded

These are source-reported observations, not independent reruns by this site. Check the task version, evaluation protocol, unit and reporting date before comparing models. Results from different setups are not a universal ranking.

Reported results 5

Shown in source observation order, not ranked. Dates retain the precision provided by the source.

ModelValueUnitProtocolReported date and basisSource
Claude Haiku 4.560.75percentPaper v1 Table 2 Overall (%), mean awarded score rather than Pass³ or worst-run; test-count-weighted average over all T1–T5; 4810 test cases across 100 synthetic U.S.-seeded personas; three independent runs; full app logs+questions in context, no RAG; filler:evidence=2.5:1, no decoys; separate evidence-grounded LLM judge (exact judge model/revision not explicitly assigned to Table 2); Claude Haiku 4.5 via Claude Code; reasoning effort not specified in paper; generation GPT-5.5/high and verification GPT-5.4/high; no per-run dates reported2026-10-29 · document_publicationP-ContextBench paper v1 · Table 2 overall accuracy
Claude Sonnet 4.675.52percentPaper v1 Table 2 Overall (%), mean awarded score rather than Pass³ or worst-run; test-count-weighted average over all T1–T5; 4810 test cases across 100 synthetic U.S.-seeded personas; three independent runs; full app logs+questions in context, no RAG; filler:evidence=2.5:1, no decoys; separate evidence-grounded LLM judge (exact judge model/revision not explicitly assigned to Table 2); Claude Sonnet 4.6 via Claude Code; reasoning effort not specified in paper; generation GPT-5.5/high and verification GPT-5.4/high; no per-run dates reported2026-10-29 · document_publicationP-ContextBench paper v1 · Table 2 overall accuracy
GPT-5.4-mini56.25percentPaper v1 Table 2 Overall (%), mean awarded score rather than Pass³ or worst-run; test-count-weighted average over all T1–T5; 4810 test cases across 100 synthetic U.S.-seeded personas; three independent runs; full app logs+questions in context, no RAG; filler:evidence=2.5:1, no decoys; separate evidence-grounded LLM judge (exact judge model/revision not explicitly assigned to Table 2); GPT-5.4-mini via Codex with low reasoning effort; generation GPT-5.5/high and verification GPT-5.4/high; no per-run dates reported2026-10-29 · document_publicationP-ContextBench paper v1 · Table 2 overall accuracy
Gemini-3-Flash61.61percentPaper v1 Table 2 Overall (%), mean awarded score rather than Pass³ or worst-run; test-count-weighted average over all T1–T5; 4810 test cases across 100 synthetic U.S.-seeded personas; three independent runs; full app logs+questions in context, no RAG; filler:evidence=2.5:1, no decoys; separate evidence-grounded LLM judge (exact judge model/revision not explicitly assigned to Table 2); google/gemini-3-flash-preview via OpenRouter; reasoning effort not specified in paper; generation GPT-5.5/high and verification GPT-5.4/high; no per-run dates reported2026-10-29 · document_publicationP-ContextBench paper v1 · Table 2 overall accuracy
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B48.1percentPaper v1 Table 2 Overall (%), mean awarded score rather than Pass³ or worst-run; test-count-weighted average over all T1–T5; 4810 test cases across 100 synthetic U.S.-seeded personas; three independent runs; full app logs+questions in context, no RAG; filler:evidence=2.5:1, no decoys; separate evidence-grounded LLM judge (exact judge model/revision not explicitly assigned to Table 2); qwen/qwen3.5-35b-a3b via OpenRouter; reasoning effort not specified in paper; generation GPT-5.5/high and verification GPT-5.4/high; no per-run dates reported2026-10-29 · document_publicationP-ContextBench paper v1 · Table 2 overall accuracy