Grok 4.7 is now available in Devin. On FrontierCode 1.1, Grok 4.7 scores 59.4% on Extended. In our evaluation, we see the model performs very well on hard backend engineering tasks.

Introducing Xiaomi MiMo-V2.6 — Pro & Flash. Frontier intelligence, all the modalities, built in public. 🔹 Two omnimodal models, advancing through scaled reinforcement learning 🔹 Pro performs on par with Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol across most agent benchmarks 🔹 Pro scores 46 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index — the highest among open-source models 🔹 Stronger coding, computer use, 3D reasoning and creative capabilities 🔹 Open model weights, technical report, RL environments and training code Blog：

Introducing Xiaomi MiMo-V2.6 — Pro & Flash. Frontier intelligence, all the modalities, built in public. 🔹 Two omnimodal models, advancing through scaled reinforcement learning 🔹 Pro performs on par with Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol across most agent benchmarks 🔹 Pro scores 46 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index — the highest among open-source models 🔹 Stronger coding, computer use, 3D reasoning and creative capabilities 🔹 Open model weights, technical report, RL environments and training code Blog：

MiMo-V2.6-Pro debuts as the top open weights model on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (46). At $0.13 per Intelligence Index task, it lands on the Intelligence vs. Cost per Task Pareto frontier @Xiaomi has just released MiMo-V2.6-Pro, an open weights model with major advances in intelligence over its predecessor, MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Intelligence Index: 26). Despite the improvement, it retains the same attractive pricing at $0.435 per 1M input tokens (with a 99% cache-hit discount) and $0.87 per 1M output tokens. This makes MiMo-V2.6-Pro one of the most cost-efficient models to deploy. MiMo-V2.6-Pro is an MoE model with 1.02T total parameters and 42B active parameters. Stay tuned for additional analysis of the model. Check out MiMo-V2.6-Pro full benchmarking breakdown here:

Introducing BONSAI SWARM! A peer-to-peer inference network, in the browser. 🤯 - Go to and share your GPU at night => EARN COINS! - Go there during the day => FREE INFERENCE!!! Built using @PrismML @xenovacom

🆓 Free Open-Source Jev 🤝 LangSmith Gateway Decision models are becoming a first-class part of the LangSmith Gateway! We're serving SemIf, an open-source decision model, free for the next week. Compatible with the TypeSafe SDK - just change a string to try it! Docs in 🧵

Test-time communication looks like a next axis for scaling capabilities New paper with the incredible @jon_ghoh and @vkontonis @ShivamGarg91462 and Akshay : The Hugging Face incident showed when agents can find a channel they'll use the heck out of it. A useful question, I think is: when does communication make a group MORE CAPABLE than the same agents working alone? Aka is Team-of-N better than Best-of-N, when, and why? We had N identical agents work on the same task with no prescribed roles, using only a shared log (i.e, text file) and telling them to "collaborate". Across three "researchy" tasks communicating teams beat the heck out of independent agents: - On ARC-AGI-3, a Team-of-5 sonnet-4.6 agents matches Best-of-33, and can for example solve a game 65% of the time that no single agent cracked in 64 tries. - On polyomino packing (pack Tetris like pieces into the smallest rectangle, cf Frontier-CS by @eigenlabs), a Team-of-3 Opus 4.6 agents surpasses best-of-60 and set, as far as i understand, a new record for that benchmark. - On MNIST compression, a team of four 5.6-Sol agents find a 1,957 byte model with 99.4% accuracy, which btw is 20% smaller than the best human solution (on a problem beaten to death!!), while no independent agent gets below 3KB. The mechanism is a bit obvious in hindsight: when one agent finds a clearly better partial solution, it broadcasts it, and everyone immediately builds on it. Why? A single lonely agent must make every breakthrough itself, yet a team needs each insight only once, found by any member. That is kinda like comparing a minimum of sum of "time to n-th breakthrough" vs a sum of minimum of "time to n-th breakthrough". That gap can grow exponentially with the number of "breakthroughs" needed to arrive at a solution. We worked on this because prior work (before the hf incident) suggests unclear benefits for communicating aganets. Which is true, when the tasks are inherently serial (duh), eg some Terminal bench style tasks. Yet feels it should not be true for research problems. Indeed for research heavy problems... Test-time communication seems like a new capabilities axis. I'm sure we will see a ton more of it!

@airesearch12 @CompleteSkeptic @mmastrac @heman10x @FeatherlessAI Cool that SemIf is right up there! Thanks for the benchmark! I'm merging a PR from @jkyamog soon which adds even larger models, maybe that could climb to the top!