Run postmortem · Published 2026-10-07

Claude Haiku 5.5max reasoning

Claude Haiku 5.5 at max completed a valid 6/100 run in 49m 14s, at an estimated API cost of $0.20.

6/ 100
hidden exact

One-hour track · max reasoning · provisional

ARI score scaleexact-match accuracy
6%
0255075100
StatusProvisional
Valid seeds1 / 3
Score rank#33
Estimated cost$0.20
Points / $30.03
Average time49:14
01 · Verdict

A clean max run scored 6/100

Haiku explicitly selected a valid artifact and answered 6 of 100 hidden questions correctly. Both submitted candidates scored 4/25 on public validation. The agent finished normally in 49 minutes 14 seconds, with no failed or cancelled compute jobs. This is one valid run in the normal one-hour benchmark and remains provisional. ARI Bench grades the compact system the agent builds, rather than asking the controller to answer the hidden questions directly.

One valid autonomous run produced a provisional 6% hidden exact-match score.

#33
Score position6% on the common 0–100 scale. Tied valid scores share a rank.

1 of 3 required seeds · Hidden exact-match accuracy, not public calibration accuracy.

02 · Approach

What Claude Haiku 5.5 built

Haiku combined a trained byte-level model with task-aware copying and arithmetic logic. It generated synthetic training examples, weighted answer bytes during training, calibrated inference and tested packaged candidates.

01

Three successful training jobs

A 60-step short test was followed by 33,428 steps of main training and a 24,154-step continuation. The main stages completed in 705 and 510 seconds. All three returned successfully.

02

Continued an 8-layer byte model

The main model used eight layers, width 256 and eight attention heads. The continuation resumed the earlier weights with a lower learning rate and broader synthetic task examples.

03

Calibrated and verified the selected package

The agent ran calibration and self-tests, submitted two candidates and explicitly finalized cand_b. The 12,389,112-byte gzip package fits the 16 MB cap. Its code, configuration and weights matched the saved selected candidate.

03 · Trajectory

How the run unfolded

Runtime correction

Restarted with the supported response allowance

The initial attempt hit OpenCode 1.18.32’s default 32,000-token response ceiling three times, using the entire allowance for reasoning without starting training. That attempt was stopped and excluded. The completed max run used OPENCODE_EXPERIMENTAL_OUTPUT_TOKEN_MAX=128000, matching Haiku’s published output limit.

Main training

The first candidate scored 4/25

After a short training test, Haiku trained the 8-layer model, calibrated it and submitted cand_a. The package was valid and achieved 16% public validation accuracy.

Continuation

More training left public accuracy unchanged

The continuation resumed cand_a and broadened synthetic examples. The resulting cand_b package was valid but also scored 4/25 on public validation.

Final grade

6 of 100 hidden exact matches

Haiku finalized cand_b and exited normally. All 19 broker requests received responses, with no broker errors. The graded bundle matched the selected candidate.

04 · Assessment

Good, bad, and unresolved

What worked

Completed and selected a valid artifact

All training and compute jobs completed without failures or cancellations. Haiku kept the selected package within the size cap and tested its inference path before finishing.

What hurt

Limited accuracy after two main training stages

Both public validation scores were 4/25, and the final hidden score was 6/100. Continued training did not improve the measured public score in this run.

What remains unknown

One result with the full response allowance

This single run does not establish a stable ranking. It used max reasoning on the standard Anthropic endpoint through OpenRouter, OpenCode 1.18.32 and a 128,000-token response allowance. That allowance is recorded so the runtime correction is visible.

05 · Evidence

The retained run record

Every archived run selected for this exact model-and-effort row is shown below. The narrative uses aggregate run evidence and final artifact structure; it does not expose hidden questions, answers, or raw private transcripts.

Swipe horizontally to see all run columns.

RunScoreTimeCost at runArtifactCandidatesGrade
run-01356%49:14$0.2012.39 MB2Valid
175.9KInput tokens
28.1KVisible output tokens
866.2KCache-read tokens

318,936 reasoning tokens are included in the estimated cost. Response allowance: 128,000 tokens.

01

One run, one outcome

Autonomous runs are stochastic. Two more valid seeds are required before this can be treated as an official estimate.

02

Candidate behavior

The agent made 2 candidate submission actions across the published run set. Selected artifacts averaged 12.39 MB compressed.

03

Time use

The runs averaged 49:14 of wall time. 1 run explicitly finalized before the one-hour limit.

Retained totals: 21 agent messages · 2 candidate actions · 1 published run.

06 · Economics

What the result cost

$0.20 estimated for this run, including reasoning.

The completed run’s estimated API cost is US$0.20, calculated from complete metadata for all 20 model responses: 175,902 uncached input tokens, 28,070 visible output tokens, 318,936 reasoning tokens and 866,166 cached input tokens. Rates were $0.10 per million input tokens, $0.50 per million output and reasoning tokens, and $0.01 per million cached input tokens. No prompt crossed the 100,000-token pricing threshold. The provider-billed amount has not been independently reconciled. The stopped initial attempt is excluded from this valid run’s chart cost; its recorded completed calls estimate to $0.0542, with its interrupted call not captured.

At current configured API-equivalent rates, the displayed run cost is $0.20 and value is 30.03 score points per dollar.

#5
Value positionValue rank #5 of 40 valid priced entries. Higher score points per dollar indicate better value.

Estimated API cost, including reasoning / run · pricing snapshot 2026-10-07.

07 · Context

Nearby results

Adjacent rows provide score context without treating small one-seed differences as settled model rankings.

Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 with the complete ARI Bench field, including score, current cost, value per dollar, effort, and seed status.

View the leaderboard