Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • None of the tweets, nor the press release, seems to mention how long time it actually took E2E to complete the evaluation, but they do mention it took "12% fewer actions" compared to just Opus 5 without AVO. Feels a bit suspicious they don't break down the timing involved, looking at the diagram from the press release, it gives the impression there is a lot of machinery here, and given they claim fewer actions, each action must be more carefully considered, doesn't it?

    Curious to read more about it though, seems the paper for it is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.24517, I'm not sure I understand if it's better than just Codex with a /goal, as they talk about "can discover performance-critical micro-architectural optimizations" but leave Codex alone for a day or two and you'll get the same results without doing "additional autonomous adaptation" at all.

    by embedding-shape
  • Verified high score is just 40%: https://arcprize.org/leaderboard
    by xnx
  • The blog post: https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-avo-reaches-100-on-...

    Using Claude Opus 5, but it can use others:

    AVO is also designed to operate across frontier models. While our full public-set result used Claude Opus 5, we additionally paired AVO with GPT-5.6 Sol on a challenging subset of games. In these limited experiments, Sol reached matched levels faster in wall-clock time in several cases, while Opus used fewer environment actions in matched-level comparisons. These preliminary results suggest complementary operating profiles across models, and we leave a broader systematic comparison to future work

    by magicalhippo
  • AVO: Agentic Variation Operators for Autonomous Evolutionary Search

    https://arxiv.org/html/2603.24517v1

    by tiahura
  • The 100% score was achieved on the 25 public set, not on the semi-private or private sets.
    by subzel0
  • AVO’s paper author (ex-NVIDIAN) is here. This work was done half a year ago for GPU kernels, and the same approach has now been applied to ARC-AGI-3. I think people are still underestimating the evolution progress; e.g., recently we made a self-improving evolution harness that generated an entire inference stack and is better than SGLang/vLLM on various tasks: https://int21.ai/insights/addressing-the-inference-bottlenec...
    by antinucleon
  • I thought ARC-AGI-3 was explicitly a test of raw model performance excluding the harness? Adding the harness back in doesn't tell us anything new. We've known that agents are capable of long horizon reasoning with sufficient harnesses. GPT-4(?) was capable of beating Pokemon 18 months ago but models only became capable of beating it without a harness in the last six months...?
    by woeirua
  • Underlying article should be the link:

    https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-avo-reaches-100-on-...

    There you will find the extremely important qualifier it's the public set, not the private set (with the risk of overfitting, ie the results not repeating when submitted to be run in competition), and the detail that this is essentially a harness added to Opus 5, not Nvidia's own models.

    Obviously still impressive, you would think.

    by mellosouls

Explore Birbla archives