GPT-5.4
A language model in OpenAI's GPT series with computer-use and visual understanding capabilities, applicable to Computer-Use Agent tasks.
Timeline (last 90 days)
The benchmark covers 9 models from 6 labs, including Qwen3 235B, Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Opus 5.5, Gemini series, GPT-5.4 series, GLM-5, and Grok 4.20, of which 4 are reasoning models.
GPT's first candidate used all six edits, precomputed rotary position encodings, and removed OpenMP pragmas, but the build had no OpenMP flags to begin with, rendering the pragmas ineffective, resulting in a final improvement of only 1.0013×.
Across nine revised runs, the median completion speedup was 5.35× for Gemini, 3.69× for Claude, and 1.00× for GPT-5.4, with all three passing automated checks.
After restoring flushing, the Claude candidate achieved a completion speedup of 2.75× and a time-to-first-byte speedup of 2.80×, while Gemini achieved a completion speedup of 3.44× and a time-to-first-byte speedup of 3.54×, and GPT-5.4 achieved a completion speedup of 2.16× and a time-to-first-byte speedup of 2.19×.
The revised experiments use Gemini 3.7 Flash, Claude Sonnet 5.5, and GPT-5.4, with each model independently performing three optimization attempts, and prompts using temperature 0 and seed 0.
在V01任务中，GPT-5.4返回的桥接表内部对账成功但方向错误，把有利的定价效应算成不利；其五个错误桥接中有四个都能内部对平
The median confidence difference across models when fabricating totals is enormous: Gemini 3 Flash and Flash-Lite at 95, GPT-5.4 nano at 62, and Claude Sonnet 5 at only 20.
GPT-5.4 was reversed by a "trusted source" on 44.7% of questions, Grok-4.20 had a reversal rate as high as 87.5%, while Gemini-3.1-Pro was nearly unaffected at just 0.6%.
GPT-5.4 achieved a completion rate of 62.5% on CAD World, with an average of 104.6 action steps and an average of 46.9 steps for successfully completed tasks.
In CAD World's 200-task evaluation, the best-performing GPT-5.4 achieved a success rate of only 17.5%.
8 more timeline events
All Facts (17)
GPT-5.4及更早版本在提取文档中的数字时频繁出错，包括小数点位置偏移、千分位分隔符误读、负号遗漏等问题
80%UnverifiedThe benchmark covers 9 models from 6 labs, including Qwen3 235B, Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Opus 5.5, Gemini series, GPT-5.4 series, GLM-5, and Grok 4.20, of which 4 are reasoning models.
50%UnverifiedAcross nine revised runs, the median completion speedup was 5.35× for Gemini, 3.69× for Claude, and 1.00× for GPT-5.4, with all three passing automated checks.
50%UnverifiedGPT's first candidate used all six edits, precomputed rotary position encodings, and removed OpenMP pragmas, but the build had no OpenMP flags to begin with, rendering the pragmas ineffective, resulting in a final improvement of only 1.0013×.
50%UnverifiedThe revised experiments use Gemini 3.7 Flash, Claude Sonnet 5.5, and GPT-5.4, with each model independently performing three optimization attempts, and prompts using temperature 0 and seed 0.
50%UnverifiedAfter restoring flushing, the Claude candidate achieved a completion speedup of 2.75× and a time-to-first-byte speedup of 2.80×, while Gemini achieved a completion speedup of 3.44× and a time-to-first-byte speedup of 3.54×, and GPT-5.4 achieved a completion speedup of 2.16× and a time-to-first-byte speedup of 2.19×.
50%Unverified在V01任务中，GPT-5.4返回的桥接表内部对账成功但方向错误，把有利的定价效应算成不利；其五个错误桥接中有四个都能内部对平
50%UnverifiedThe median confidence difference across models when fabricating totals is enormous: Gemini 3 Flash and Flash-Lite at 95, GPT-5.4 nano at 62, and Claude Sonnet 5 at only 20.
50%UnverifiedGPT-5.4 was reversed by a "trusted source" on 44.7% of questions, Grok-4.20 had a reversal rate as high as 87.5%, while Gemini-3.1-Pro was nearly unaffected at just 0.6%.
50%UnverifiedIn CAD World's 200-task evaluation, the best-performing GPT-5.4 achieved a success rate of only 17.5%.
50%UnverifiedGPT-5.4 achieved a completion rate of 62.5% on CAD World, with an average of 104.6 action steps and an average of 46.9 steps for successfully completed tasks.
50%UnverifiedReaders should independently verify whether "GPT-5.4" and "Claude Opus 4.6" are model versions officially released by their respective vendors, and avoid treating unofficial or speculative names as established facts.
50%UnverifiedThe task success rates of three frontier models are very close, all falling between 84% and 89%.
50%UnverifiedClaude Opus 4.6 produced 30 times more errors than GPT-5.4, averaging 2.5 errors per trajectory vs. 0.08, with the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.0001, Cliff's δ = 0.613).
50%UnverifiedParticipants in the experiment included a locally run 4-bit quantized Gemma 26B (built on MLX), Claude Opus 4.8 accessed via API, and GPT-5.4.
50%UnverifiedGPT-5.4 has an accuracy of 50.5%, while its paired always-predict-up baseline is 51.6%.
50%UnverifiedQwen2.5-72B approaches GPT-4 level performance on benchmarks such as MMLU and HumanEval.
50%