Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
AssessTechniques
A newly announced benchmark for evaluating science-oriented terminal-based problem solving.
Why it's here
Placed in Assess: 3 article(s) of evidence from 2 source(s), led by model releases, with 1 in the last 30 days. Confidence 42%.
Evidence (3)
- 5The New Stack·9/10/2026researchFable 5.1 and Fable 5 tested on real benchmark tasks
The article compares Anthropic’s Fable 5.1 and Fable 5 on a subset of Terminal-Bench-Science tasks using a user-like budget rather than the benchmark’s published conditions. In these runs, Fable 5.1 performed better on some tasks, but both models still failed several tests and the gap was much smaller than the headline benchmark score suggests.
- 4Simon Willison·9/1/2026model_releaseClaude Fable 5.1 Generates a Strong Animated Pelican
Anthropic released Claude Fable 5.1 and highlighted improved performance on coding, knowledge work, and especially the new Terminal-Bench-Science benchmark. Simon Willison tested it on an SVG prompt and found that higher reasoning settings produced much better results, with the max setting generating the best pelican image he has seen from Anthropic models.
- 8The New Stack·9/1/2026model_releaseAnthropic launches Fable 5.1 with lower cache costs and looser safeguards
Anthropic released Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1, claiming better performance at lower cost mainly through a 75% cut in cache read pricing. Fable 5.1 is generally available for API and premium plan users, while Mythos 5.1 stays in trusted access with safeguards aimed at cybersecurity and life sciences. Anthropic also says Fable 5.1 is less over-cautious, with cyber and biology safeguards intervening less often and new benchmark gains in research-related tasks.