Tools chosen: polymarket_direct polymarket_related kalshi_related claude_news claude_news gdelt_news wikipedia

Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)

Planner reasoning

This is a Polymarket question about whether any Meta model reaches ≥55% HLE accuracy on the official leaderboard by end of 2026. Key drivers are the current market price, the current state-of-the-art on HLE (whether any lab has reached 55%), Meta's current best HLE score and its 2026 model roadmap (Llama 4 Behemoth, Meta Superintelligence Labs), and whether leaderboard scores count tool-use configurations. I'll anchor on the direct market, triangulate with related markets on other thresholds and labs, and use news searches for leaderboard and Meta model developments.

# Current state The market resolves on the official agi.safe.ai/Scale AI HLE leaderboard, where the current best documented Meta entry (Muse Spark, MSL's post-Llama flagship) sits at ~40-45% per independent trackers — well below the 55% bar. Meta's own marketing claims of 50.2%-58% rely on an ensemble "Contemplating mode" not obviously equivalent to the standard "HLE Accuracy" leaderboard metric, and are contested by independent evaluators (Artificial Analysis) and press (conflict-of-interest allegations). # Timeline of key events - 2025-04: Meta releases Llama 4 (Scout/Maverick); best documented HLE score ~6.2% (rank ~98/97) — confirmed low benchmark, per LayerLens/BenchmarkList (claude_news). - Late 2025–early 2026: Llama 4 Behemoth (2T param) finishes training but is shelved due to "poor internal performance"; never formally released or cancelled (reported, NYT via claude_news). - 2026-04-08: Meta Superintelligence Labs (led by Alexandr Wang) launches Muse Spark, a closed-weight model replacing the Llama line (confirmed, Wikipedia + officechai.com + claude_news). - 2026-04: Muse Spark 1.0 launch — Meta self-reports 50.2% HLE (no tools, "Contemplating" mode) and a separate 58% figure for full Contemplating mode; independent Artificial Analysis measures Thinking-mode score at 39.9% (reported/disputed). - 2026-07-09: Commentators (Digg) allege conflict-of-interest issues compromising Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 HLE benchmark claims (reported). - 2026-07 (undated, ~mid): Muse Spark 1.1 released; independent HLE ≈45% (Artificial Analysis), Intelligence Index 51 (reported). - 2026-08-11: Meta unveils Muse Glimmer, a smaller 30B local-run model (not a frontier/HLE contender) (confirmed, Forbes). - 2026-08-16: Official Scale AI public leaderboard snapshot: Gemini 3.1 Pro (thinking high) 46.44%, GPT-5.4 Pro 44.32%, Muse Spark 40.56%, Gemini 3 Pro 37.52% (confirmed per IntuitionLabs summary of agi.safe.ai partner site). - 2026-08 (~"Muse Spark 1.2"): Independent HLE score dips to ~44% (from 45%), Intelligence Index rises to 54 (reported, Artificial Analysis). - 2026-09-02: Frontier field leaders (non-Meta) hit 55-65% on various trackers — Claude Fable 5.1 at 65% (BenchLM) / 59.1% (Artificial Analysis) — confirming the 55%+ bar is achievable technically but Meta remains ~15-20 points behind (confirmed). # Event Will any Meta-published model reach ≥55% accuracy on the official Humanity's Last Exam (agi.safe.ai) leaderboard by Dec 31, 2026? # Outcomes to forecast - Yes (Meta model hits ≥55% HLE) - No (Meta stays below 55%) # Kalshi market anchor Current YES price: **44%** (Polymarket data, same ticker). Trend: -5.5% over 7 days, -2% over 30 days — declining. Range has been wide (28%–67.5%) over 42 days of trading, volume modest (~$22.9K total). Market has cooled from earlier optimism, consistent with underwhelming independent Muse Spark verification scores. # Sub-question answers 1. **Current top HLE score / 12-month trend** — Independent trackers show frontier leaders now at 55-65% (Claude Fable 5.1: 65% per BenchLM, 59.1% per Artificial Analysis, Sept 2026), up from single digits in early 2025 (GPT-4o 2.7%, Claude 3.5 Sonnet 4.1%) — an unprecedented ~1-year climb led by Anthropic/OpenAI/Google. The official Scale AI leaderboard is lower/lagged, topping out near 46% (Gemini 3.1 Pro, Aug 2026). 2. **Best Meta score / leaderboard presence** — Meta's Muse Spark appears on the official Scale AI leaderboard at 40.56% (Aug 2026, IntuitionLabs). Independent AA trackers put Muse Spark 1.1/1.2 at 44-45%. Meta's own marketing claims 50.2-58% via a multi-agent "Contemplating mode," disputed by independent evaluators and press (conflict-of-interest allegations, Digg). 3. **2026 frontier model plans** — Llama 4 Behemoth is effectively dead/shelved (never shipped). Meta pivoted fully to closed-weight Muse Spark line under MSL (launched April 2026), with iterative updates (1.0→1.1→1.2) showing incremental, sometimes regressing, gains (Intelligence Index 43→51→54). Muse Glimmer (Aug 2026) is a smaller local model, not a benchmark contender. 4. **Tool-augmented/agentic configs** — Meta's highest self-reported figures (58%) come from an ensemble "Contemplating mode," which functions similarly to tool/agentic augmentation; independent verifiers don't replicate this in single-model "Thinking mode" tests (39.9-45%). Whether the official leaderboard would accept such a mode as "HLE Accuracy" is unclear/disputed — a key resolution risk. 5. **Gap vs. OpenAI/Google/Anthropic/xAI** — Meta trails significantly: on the official leaderboard, Meta (40.56%) sits below GPT-5.4 Pro (44.32%) and Gemini 3.1 Pro (46.44%), and far below Anthropic's ~60-65% frontier scores. Meta also lags on coding/hard reasoning generally (Llama 4 "trails DeepSeek V4 and Qwen 3.5/3.6"). No base rate exists for Meta closing a 15-20pt benchmark gap in under 4 months given repeated underperformance vs. self-reported claims. 6. **Related markets pricing** — No other HLE-threshold or lab-specific Kalshi/Polymarket markets found (0 matches on Polymarket related-market scan); this ticker is the only relevant HLE market identified. # Key facts (high-confidence, factual) 1. [Polymarket] Current YES price 44%, declining trend. 2. [IntuitionLabs/agi.safe.ai] Official leaderboard: Muse Spark at 40.56% (Aug 16, 2026); top model (Gemini 3.1 Pro) at 46.44%. 3. [Wikipedia] Muse Spark replaced Llama as Meta's flagship in April 2026 under MSL. 4. [claude_news/NYT] Behemoth shelved, never released. 5. [Artificial Analysis via claude_news] Independent Muse Spark scores: 1.0 39.9%, 1.1 ~45%, 1.2 ~44% — plateauing below 55%, not converging upward. # Cross-market signals - Kalshi related: No direct HLE markets found besides this ticker; tangential Meta markets (headcount, antitrust) unrelated to AI benchmarks. - Polymarket: Same ticker mirrored — 44% YES, high volatility (28-67.5% range), suggesting past optimism (possibly around Meta's 58% self-reported claim) has since faded as independent verification came in lower. - Sportsbook implied: N/A. # Analyst opinions and speculation - Claude_news synthesis: reaching 55%+ "would require an enormous, unprecedented leap...inconsistent with Meta's current trajectory." - Digg commentary alleges conflict-of-interest in Meta's self-reported benchmark methodology, casting doubt on Meta's higher claimed figures being accepted for official resolution. # Directional lean per outcome - **Yes**: Field-wide progress is rapid (frontier leaders already exceed 55-65%); Meta's self-reported "Contemplating mode" claims 58%, and if such ensemble scoring were credited on the official leaderboard, Yes could resolve. Four more months of releases remain. - **No** (favored): Official leaderboard has Meta at ~40.56%; independent trackers show a plateau (~44-45%) across three iterative releases with no clear upward trajectory; flagship Behemoth is dead; Meta trails all four major competitors by double digits. # Gaps / unknowns - Whether "Contemplating mode" ensemble scores would count as official "HLE Accuracy" per resolution rules is unresolved and pivotal. - No confirmation of further Meta frontier releases planned before Dec 31, 2026. - Official agi.safe.ai leaderboard update cadence/lag vs. third-party trackers unclear. # Calibration anchors - Kalshi/Polymarket current YES price: 44% (anchor), down from a 67.5% high. - Precedent: Meta's Muse Spark line has repeatedly underperformed its own marketing claims by 10-18 points when independently verified (1.0: 58% claimed vs 39.9% verified).

1. Both forecasts land materially above what the plateau data implies (three consecutive Meta releases at 39.9%→45%→44%, official leaderboard 40.56%) — a ~10-15pt gap to close in ~4 months with a "dead" flagship (Behemoth) and no confirmed pipeline; a base-rate/momentum-only read would justify Yes well under 20%, yet both sit at 28-36%, seemingly anchored too heavily on the Kalshi price rather than the fundamentals. 2. Neither forecaster grapples with the resolution-criteria ambiguity as a bimodal risk rather than a continuous discount: if "Contemplating mode" is ruled ineligible (likely, given it's an ensemble/agentic scheme not matching standard "HLE Accuracy"), Yes probability should collapse near-zero; if ruled eligible, Meta's self-reported 58% would trivially satisfy the bar. Averaging into a smooth 28-36% may misrepresent this as continuous uncertainty rather than a discrete rules-resolution gate. 3. Both cite the declining market trend (67.5%→44%, -5.5%/7d) as reinforcing their downward adjustment, but neither asks why the market still sits as high as 44% given such weak fundamentals — this could indicate residual uncertainty specifically about the ensemble-mode rules question (sub-question 4), which deserves more explicit weight rather than being folded into a generic "discount below anchor." 4. Neither forecast addresses potential leaderboard lag/update-cadence risk (flagged in Gaps/Unknowns): if the official agi.safe.ai leaderboard updates infrequently, a hypothetical Meta breakthrough late in Q4 2026 might not be reflected/certified by the Dec 31 close, which should push probability further toward No than either forecast allows. 5. Both retain "meaningful" Yes probability for a "surprise Q4 release," but the evidence brief offers no signal of any planned Meta frontier release beyond Muse Spark iterations and Glimmer (a smaller, non-frontier model) — this hedge appears unanchored to any concrete evidence and may be inflating Yes beyond what the brief supports. 6. Neither forecaster explicitly weighs the conflict-of-interest allegations (Digg, July 2026) as bearing on resolution risk — if Meta's benchmark methodology is viewed as compromised, official arbiters (Scale AI) may be less likely to credit any borderline high score, which is a one-directional risk toward No that isn't reflected in either rationale.

20% (65% confidence)

Yes: 20% No: 80%

The critique correctly identifies that both forecasters anchored too heavily on the 44% market price despite fundamentals pointing much lower: the official leaderboard shows Meta at 40.56%, independent scores have plateaued at 39.9%→45%→44% across three releases, Behemoth is dead, and no frontier release is confirmed before year-end. Closing a 10-15pt gap in four months contradicts Meta's demonstrated trajectory and its pattern of 10-18pt marketing-vs-verified discrepancies. The main residual Yes path is the bimodal rules question — whether ensemble 'Contemplating mode' scores could be credited officially — but the fact that Scale AI already lists Muse Spark at 40.56% (not Meta's claimed 50-58%) suggests the official arbiter has implicitly rejected that methodology, and conflict-of-interest allegations further reduce the chance of a borderline claim being credited. I move below both forecasts to 20% Yes, retaining probability mainly for the eligibility-ruling tail and a possible late-year release, while the thin market ($22.9K volume, declining from 67.5%) deserves limited anchoring weight.

Total pipeline time: 187.7s