Use the selected subject’s accuracy, median latency, mean cost per response and total token use.
AI models put to the teston advanced mathematics and physics.
UniAIBench compares 21 model–mode configurations on the same 60 advanced university problems in Mathematical Analysis III and General Physics II, measuring accuracy, response time, cost, and token usage.
21 AI configurations, tested on the same 60 university problems in Mathematical Analysis III and General Physics II. Compare accuracy, time, cost and token use.
Why does the paper cover 14 configurations?i
The paper remains a frozen 14 August 2026 snapshot. The live benchmark later added Mistral Medium 3.5, Mistral Small 4, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash; GPT-6.1 Sol, GPT-6 Luna, Claude Opus 5.5, and Claude Sonnet 5.5 joined on 15 October 2026. The current site tables and Atlas cover all 21 configurations.

Parameters
Set priorities
Weights always sum to 100%. Changing one automatically redistributes the remainder across the other metrics.
Weight assigned to benchmark correctness.
How does this affect the ranking?
Weight assigned to response time.
How does this affect the ranking?
Weight assigned to cost per response.
How does this affect the ranking?
Weight assigned to total token use across the selected exercise scope.
How does this affect the ranking?
How is the score calculated?Open the four-metric method
Composite score
Four measurements become one scenario-specific ranking.
The score combines benchmark accuracy with lower latency, cost and token use. It changes when your priorities change; the underlying measurements do not.
Convert each metric to a 0–1 scale among the included models. One always means the best observed value.
Apply the displayed percentages in a weighted geometric mean, so a weak highly weighted metric cannot be fully hidden.
S = 100 × Q0.50 × L0.25 × C0.25 × R0.00Q accuracy · L latency · C cost · R tokensRelative, not absolute. A score of 80 is not 80% correctness; it is a composite result within this model set.
Lower is better for resources. Latency, cost and tokens are inverted during normalization. Values are floored at 0.01 so the geometric mean remains defined.
Weighted result · All subjects
Scenario ranking
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic
Selection basis
Highest composite score for the current weights.The ranking changes with the selected weights and does not establish statistical superiority.
Composite index
Overall ranking
Base criterion
Accuracy ranking
Base criterion
Cost ranking
Base criterion
Latency ranking
Base criterion
Tokens ranking
Certified common panel
Benchmark evidence
Eight views covering correctness, cost, tokens and response time. All use the same 21-configuration × 60-exercise matched panel.
Correctness
Mean accuracy and uncertainty
Dot = mean · line = 95% bootstrap CI
Overall macro-mean; every exercise has equal weight. The focused 50–100% scale preserves differences among high-performing models.
Correctness profile
Performance across T1–T8
Cell = mean score (%)
What do T1–T8 mean? +
T1Understanding / modelling
T2Method selection
T3Development
T4Final results
T5Domains / assumptions
T6Consistency
T7Rigor
T8Independent verification
T1–T8 expose the structure hidden by a single aggregate accuracy value. Darker green indicates stronger performance.
Resource use
Mean cost and uncertainty
Mean per exercise and 60-exercise panel total
Estimated cost uses the benchmark pricing snapshot. Gemma’s configured zero rate is campaign-specific.
Token anatomy
Token composition by model
Totals cover the 60 common exercises. Claude Fable 5 reports output without a visible/reasoning split and is shown separately.
Response time
Typical response-time ranking
Dot = median · line = Q1–Q3 interval
End-to-end time excludes the local queue before dispatch and includes the API call, generation and retries. Total panel time ranges from 25.5m to 12.1h.
Exercise profile
Where response times differ
Cell = model time / exercise median
A value of 0.5 means half the exercise’s typical time; 2.0 means twice as long. Normalization controls for exercise difficulty. Outlined cells include retries.
Time drivers
How mean response time is formed
Mean tokens × effective seconds per 1K
High intensityMore tokens
High intensityFewer tokens
Low intensityMore tokens
Low intensity0.0k6.3k12.6k18.8k25.1k015304560Mean analytical tokens per response →Effective seconds per 1K tokens →
Bubble size represents mean response time. Seconds per 1K is an operational ratio including latency, generation and retries—not pure provider throughput.
Accuracy relationship
Response time vs. accuracy
Median time on a logarithmic scale
Descriptive association across 21 configurations; it does not establish causality.
Overall relationship · better = up + left
Accuracy gap from expected trend
Positive gaps indicate more accuracy than expected at the observed median time; negative gaps indicate less.
Specifics
