UnifyBench

RankingEffort benchmarks

Muse Glimmer 30B

Compare models

2 measured results · 1 effort settings · 2 benchmark/harness combinations

Model evidence and sources →

Change model

Compare with

Choose a second model and its effort to see both profiles and benchmark differences below.

Compare with

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100
Muse Glimmer 30B · XHigh capability radarComparison scores from 0 to 100. Unknown capabilities have no point; lines stop at gaps. Hollow points are preliminary. Exact values and support labels follow the chart.AgenticHard reasoningCodingHuman prefKnowledgeMultimodalLong context50100

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

  • Agentic

    Unknown

  • Hard reasoning

    Unknown

  • Coding

    Unknown

  • Human pref

    Unknown

  • Knowledge

    Unknown

  • Multimodal

    Unknown

  • Long context

    Unknown

Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.

Capability score evidence

Muse Glimmer 30B · XHigh: No connected estimate. No admitted path to the complete configuration reference panel

Which sources carry the weight?

    These shares describe direct comparison weight, not fractions of the final score or confidence. Source balancing does not give every family equal weight or remove correlations between overlapping sources.

    This configuration did not qualify for the dated stability audit.

    What evidence is missing from the fit?

    Across all collected settings for this model: 4 observations, 0 contributing, 0 matched without graph weight and 4 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

    • 2 · Evaluator has not been reviewed for independent admission
    • 2 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
    Inspect every observation and exclusion →

    Benchmark results

    These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

    Benchmark / sourceXHigh
    DAYJOB HealthcareSurge AI · OpenHands SDK 1.43.1 inside Harbor 0.22.0. Judge is Claude Opus 4.8. Score is the board's strict pass@1 percent.
    Benchmark details

    DAYJOB Healthcare strict pass@1 percent on the public Surge board. tau = 1, five attempts per task, 50 tasks in the paper and the Hugging Face dataset card. The page meta description says 65 assignments. That count is not on the scoreboard and is not used as n. An attempt passes only when every binary rubric criterion is met. Finance is a separate benchmark. Display only. Not an average and not GDPval-AA.

    Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.

    0%
    Reported settings

    Muse Glimmer 30B; effort xhigh. Strict pass@1 percent, tau = 1, five attempts, 50 DAYJOB: Healthcare tasks. An attempt passes only when every binary rubric criterion is met. OpenHands SDK 1.43.1 in Harbor 0.22.0. Judge: Claude Opus 4.8.

    DAYJOB FinanceSurge AI · OpenHands SDK 1.43.1 inside Harbor 0.22.0. Judge is Claude Opus 4.8. Score is the board's strict pass@1 percent.
    Benchmark details

    DAYJOB Finance strict pass@1 percent on the public Surge board. tau = 1, five attempts per task, 80 tasks in the paper and the Hugging Face dataset card. An attempt passes only when every binary rubric criterion is met. Healthcare is a separate benchmark. Display only. Not an average and not GDPval-AA.

    Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.

    0%
    Reported settings

    Muse Glimmer 30B; effort xhigh. Strict pass@1 percent, tau = 1, five attempts, 80 DAYJOB: Finance tasks. An attempt passes only when every binary rubric criterion is met. OpenHands SDK 1.43.1 in Harbor 0.22.0. Judge: Claude Opus 4.8.

    What these comparisons mean

    Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.

    These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.

    Download all effort benchmark results · 8,916 results across 259 models · Collected 2026-10-18