Explore more topics
Published model evaluations

Hy3: trading task evaluations

See how tencent/hy3 performed in 1 trading task evaluation, with exact version, measured results, dates and test inputs.

As of 2026-08-08

Jump to a section

TL;DR

Tencent Hy3 found 83.1% of labeled defects and repeated its grade on 18 of 23 artifacts in the August 2026 review study. Luna matched that defect recall and repeated its grade on 19 artifacts. The difference is one repeat agreement in this sample, not a broad review-quality advantage. Reducers judge the findings their reviewers supply; repeated grades alone do not prove correctness. The table publishes no per-model cost or latency.

Exact tested ID
tencent/hy3
Published studies
1
Provider
tencent

Artifact grading and repeatability study: compare the tested outputs

Repeated grades on 23 artifacts

Scale: 0 to 19 artifacts · zero baseline

August 8, 2026 repeat

  • Hy3+18 artifacts
  • Luna+19 artifacts

Both models found 83.1% of labeled defects. The difference is one repeat agreement in this sample; repeated grades alone do not establish correctness.

Show the table · 2 rows, 3 columns

Scroll sideways to compare all columns. Select a heading to sort.

tencent/hy383.1%18 of 23
openai/gpt-5.6-luna83.1%19 of 23

23 hand-labeled artifacts covering 14 task types; 3 reducer models in the public table. Published 2026-08-08. Values retain their original units and grading scale.

tencent/hy3 was tested on 2026-08-08. 23 hand-labeled artifacts covering 14 task types; 3 reducer models in the public table. Its row and the other published arm use the same task and measurement units.

What this version helps you choose

Hy3 tied Luna’s defect recall and repeated its grade on one fewer artifact. That narrow consistency difference belongs to this 23-artifact sample.

Review defects in delivered research: follow the published task

The reducer can assess only the defects supplied by its mappers. The repeated-grade count measures consistency separately from finding defects.

Step 1 of 3

Source: 10 transactions and a Disney sale

The published Pelosi research checks 65 disclosure PDFs against 135 transactions read independently by eye. In the cited filing, the source contains 10 transactions; the Disney transaction is a sale.

What you should see

These are public extraction errors used to explain what a reviewer must check.

Step 2 of 3

Returned rows: 19 transactions and a Disney purchase

A sliding-window regex returned 19 transactions for the filing containing 10. Omitting the transaction-type filter turned the Disney sale into a purchase. Both errors left plausible-looking JSONL rows.

What you should see

Compare the returned count and buy/sell direction with the original filing. A successful code exit does not establish either match.

Step 3 of 3

Review: nine findings become six upheld defects

The published diagram gives OCR text, a rendered image, the native PDF, and code plus rows to four independent reviewers. Their nine findings reach one reducer: three are dropped as noise, six are upheld, and the displayed grade is B−.

What you should see

This diagram illustrates the review mechanism. It is not identified as one of the 23 private benchmark artifacts or as a scored response from Luna, Hy3 or MiniMax.

Artifact grading and repeatability study

For artifact review, Hy3 found 83.1% of the hand-labeled defects and repeated its grade on 18 of 23 artifacts. These are separate measurements of finding defects and consistency. Cost and latency are not published for this comparison.

Show the table · 2 rows, 2 columns
Published metricValue
Defects found83.1%
Same grade on re-run18 of 23

Artifact grading and repeatability study: read these measurements

Read the complete rubric, sample and billing notes

23 hand-labeled artifacts covering 14 task types; 3 reducer models in the public table

Judge defects in delivered research artifacts, including code and validation evidence.

  1. Scoring

    Defect recall is the share of hand-labeled defects found. Repeated-grade agreement counts artifacts assigned the same grade on a repeat; agreement alone does not prove correctness.

  2. Cost units

    This comparison table has no per-model billing column.

  3. Time units

    This table publishes no per-model latency.

  4. Mapper / reducer

    Mappers inspect parts of an artifact independently. The reducer combines their findings and assigns the final grade.

Continue exploring

Discussion

Sign in or create a free account to join the discussion.

No comments yet.

Aurora · AI research assistant

Try this in Aurora

Edit the request, then open it in Aurora. You choose when to send it.