AlphaGenome models operate with high precision and low recall, yielding few false positives but numerous false negatives

Overview Debates Related claims Topics

In Pavel Huron's bug hunt test, Gemini 4 Carbon identified 57 out of 105 bugs, compared to Fable 5.2 identifying 58 bugs

Gemini 4 Carbon completed Pavel Huron's bug hunt benchmark for $31, compared to approximately $140 for Fable 5.2

In a simulated multi-agent travel itinerary booking workflow, software agents maintained a 66% operational uptime while achieving 0% task completion due to semantic misalignment

In a Cisco deployment test of a five-agent system, two cognitive failures caused overall system accuracy to drop from 98% to 81%

An analysis of public ChatDev multi-agent software development traces revealed semantic and cognitive misalignment failures in 100% of recorded sessions

At its preview at the end of October 2026, Gemini 4 Carbon was the top-ranked model on the Artificial Analysis index

In a Cisco deployment test of a five-agent system, three cognitive failures dropped overall system accuracy to 16%

On the Artificial Analysis benchmark suite, Fable 5.2 cost $26.54 per task when operating on max effort settings

On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, Fable 5.2 achieved a score of 65, placing 5 points ahead of Gemini Carbon, 6 points ahead of Opus 5.5, and 8 points ahead of GPT-6 Astra

On the RoboDojo Simon robotics benchmark, Fable 5.2 scored 64.9%, exceeding Opus 5.5's score by 25 points

On the Remote Labor Index contractor benchmark, Fable 5.2 achieved a score of 41.3%, compared to Opus 5.5's score of 21%

On protein design benchmarks, Mythos 5.2 scored 85.1%, outperforming Mythos 5.1 by 6 percentage points

On the Artificial Analysis benchmark suite, Fable 5.2 cost $9.08 per task on high effort settings

Ablating 80% to 90% of neurons in the Qwen 3.6-35B A3B language model improved performance on ARC-AGI benchmark puzzles

On the TerminalBench Science 0.1 benchmark for agentic scientific research, Fable 5.2 scored 6 points ahead of GPT-6 Astra

On the Artificial Analysis benchmark suite, Fable 5.2 cost $14.83 per task on extra high effort settings

Un-fine-tuned sparsified language models match baseline performance on reasoning tasks when evaluated using pass-at-4 or pass-at-8 sampling regimes

On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, Fable 5.2 scored 62 on both the Extra High and High effort settings

On the AA Briefcase benchmark, Fable 5.2 recorded a lower Elo score than Opus 5.5

Performance on factual question-answering benchmarks such as MedQA and GPQA Diamond can be restored to within one point of baseline after model sparsification and fine-tuning