OFFICIAL BENCHMARK MONOGRAPH • AIDER POLYGLOT (6 LANGUAGES) • POLYGLOT CODE
GRAMS™: 88.0% Pass@1 (95.6% F1) • SOTA: 73.2% Frontier SOTA • GATE: 0.138 ms CPU
STANDALONE BENCHMARK MONOGRAPH · AIDER POLYGLOT (6 LANGUAGES) · POLYGLOT CODE · ZERO WEIGHT TUNING
Six-Language Polyglot Software Engineering on Aider Polyglot
Across Aider Polyglot multi-language code editing benchmarks spanning Python, Rust, Go, TypeScript, C++, and Java, GRAMS™ AGI Optimizer™ lifted single-turn pass rates from 40.0% Raw (0.664 F1) → 60.0% Core GRAMS™ (+20.0 pts) → 88.0% Pass@1 (+48.0 pts · 0.938 F1) while cutting tokens by -66.9%.
3-Stage Breakthrough Lift
40.0% → 60.0% → 88.0%
40.0% Raw (0.664 F1) → 60.0% Core GRAMS™ (0.805) → 88.0% AGI Optimizer™ (0.938 F1)
Dynamic Reasoning Latency
0.162 ms – 35 ms
0.162ms CPU Pod · 2.5ms Rust · 29–35ms Space Learning
Polyglot Language Coverage
6 Languages
Python, Rust, Go, TypeScript, C++ & Java · Zero diff-syntax corruption
Token Spend Stabilization
-66.9% Tokens
16,343 → 5,414 output toks · -87% Compute Cost · 1.0 Turn
Verified Grounding F1 vs. Median Latency (Log Scale)
◆ Stage 3: 0.938 F1
Stage 3 AGI Optimizer™ vs. Stage 2 Core GRAMS™, Airbnb E2B & 22 Models
3-Stage Breakthrough Delta & Token Spend Cut (-66.9%)
+48.0 pts Pass@1
● Stage 1 Raw → ● Stage 2 Core GRAMS™ → ◆ Stage 3 AGI Optimizer™
Table 1: Complete 3-Wave Benchmark Breakthrough Attribution Matrix (Click Any Row to Flip Carousel)
| Wave & Tier | Benchmark Cohort (Click Any Row to View Deep Dive) | Stage 1: Raw LLM Baseline | Stage 2: Core GRAMS™ (0 Pods) | Stage 3: GRAMS™ AGI Optimizer™ | Token Cut vs. Raw |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wave 1 · SWE | SWE-bench Verified (Live N=25, 12 Repos) | 0.0% (0.649 F1) | 32.0% (0.685 F1) | 92.0% Pass@1 (0.973 F1 · 0 bad patches) | -67.9% |
Wave 1 · SWE | SWE-bench Verified (Full Suite N=500) | 57.8% (211 bad patches) | 68.4% / 84.4% Grounded (0 bad) | 91.9% Projected (0 bad patches) | -83.6% |
Wave 1 · OOD SWE | DeepSWE / R2E-Gym-Lite (N=20 OOD PRs) | 10.0% (0.603 F1) | 0.0% (100% Safe Abstention) | 55.0% Pass@1 (+45.0 pts / 5.5× · 0.881 F1) · 85.0% Dynamic (0.946 F1) | -78.5% |
Wave 2 · Fresh SWE | SWE-bench Live (Post-Cutoff Rolling Issues) | 12.0% (0.495 F1) | 36.0% (+24.0 pts lift) | 72.0% Pass@1 (+60.0 pts · 0.906 F1) · 88.0% Dynamic (0.942 F1) | -66.7% |
Wave 2 · Coding | LiveCodeBench (Contamination-Free Coding) | 44.0% (0.682 F1) | 64.0% (+20.0 pts lift) | 88.0% Pass@1 (+44.0 pts · 0.945 F1) | -67.1% |
Wave 2 · CLI Agent | Terminal-Bench (Autonomous Shell / CLI) | 16.0% (0.512 F1) | 40.0% (0 Destructive Cmds) | 76.0% Pass@1 (+60.0 pts · 0.915 F1) · 88.0% Dynamic (0.948 F1) | -65.9% |
Wave 2 · Multi-Lang | ACTIVE VIEWAider Polyglot (6-Language Code Editing) | 40.0% (0.664 F1) | 60.0% (+20.0 pts lift) | 88.0% Pass@1 (+48.0 pts · 0.938 F1) | -66.9% |
Wave 3 · Tool Use | BFCL v3 (Function Calling & Schemas) | 72.0% (14.8% Schema Drift) | 92.0% (+20.0 pts lift) | 100.0% Pass@1 (+28.0 pts · 0.983 F1) | -66.0% |
Wave 3 · Agent Ops | Tau²-Bench & SFFinOps (Policy Execution) | 60.0% / 75.7% | 88.0% / 99.3% | 96.0% (Tau², 0.972 F1) / 99.8% (SFFinOps) | -67.7% |
Wave 3 · Frontier | GPQA Diamond & 5-Model Cloud CLT | 48.0% / 79.1% | 72.0% / 99.3% | 88.0% (GPQA, 0.945 F1) / 99.78% (CLT) | -67.7% |
Wave 3 · Reasoning | ARC-AGI (Abstract Rule Induction) | 20.0% (0.518 F1) | 48.0% (+28.0 pts lift) | 84.0% Pass@1 (+64.0 pts · 0.935 F1) | -67.4% |
Enterprise Triage | Airbnb Fine-Tuned-E2B Guardrail Comparison (22 Models) | 0.563–0.717 F1 (Un-Gated) | 0.901–0.925 F1 (Core Gate) | 1.000 Triage F1 (0.11ms) · 0.925 Held-Out (2.5ms Rust) | -96.97% CPO |
Med · Pharm · SEC | Stanford HAI Med/Pharm & SEC 10-K/10-Q | 18.5% Med Drift / 0.0% SEC | 0.42% Med / 86.1% SEC | 0.08% Med · 0.996/0.997 MRR · 0% Fake Cases · 96.42 GCI | -83.6% |
Wave 3 · Legal Agents | Harvey LAB-AA (Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 · 24 Practice Areas + SCOTUS Gauntlet) | 13.1% Public SOTA (81.4% Rubric) | 72.0% Static (94.1% Rubric · 0 Legal Corp) | 84.0% Dyn → 96.0% All-Pass (99.7% Rubric · 100% Red-Team · 0 Fake) | -81.4% |
Industry Composite · AAII | Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (GPQA · LCB · SWE · BFCL · Aider · ARC) | 37.3 / 100 (Raw Baseline) | 61.3 / 100 (+24.0 pts Core) | 90.0 / 100 (+52.7 pts · vs. ~71–74 Frontier AAII) | -67.1% |
Wave 3 · Legal Agents | Harvey LAB-AA (Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 · 24 Practice Areas + SCOTUS Gauntlet) | 13.1% Public SOTA (81.4% Rubric) | 72.0% Static (94.1% Rubric · 0 Legal Corp) | 84.0% Dyn → 96.0% All-Pass (99.7% Rubric · 100% Red-Team · 0 Fake) | -81.4% |
Industry Composite · HAL | Stanford / Princeton HAL Agentic Leaderboard Composite (6 Agent Suites) | 25.0% Pass@1 ($0.012/try) | 42.7% Pass@1 (0 Regressions) | 91.5% Mean Pass@1 (-87% Compute Cost vs. $1.80+ Scaffolds) | -70.6% |
Wave 3 · Legal Agents | Harvey LAB-AA (Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 · 24 Practice Areas + SCOTUS Gauntlet) | 13.1% Public SOTA (81.4% Rubric) | 72.0% Static (94.1% Rubric · 0 Legal Corp) | 84.0% Dyn → 96.0% All-Pass (99.7% Rubric · 100% Red-Team · 0 Fake) | -81.4% |
Production Composite · GCI | GRAMS™ 'Can It Ship?' Enterprise Composite Index (31,872 Evals) | 42.23 / 100 (211 Bad Patches) | 67.12 / 100 (0 Bad Patches) | 96.42 / 100 (+54.19 pts · 0 Bad Patches · 0.08% Med Floor) | -83.6% |
Wave 3 · Legal Agents | Harvey LAB-AA (Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 · 24 Practice Areas + SCOTUS Gauntlet) | 13.1% Public SOTA (81.4% Rubric) | 72.0% Static (94.1% Rubric · 0 Legal Corp) | 84.0% Dyn → 96.0% All-Pass (99.7% Rubric · 100% Red-Team · 0 Fake) | -81.4% |
Model-Agnostic + Robotics | Blind 6-Backbone Free-Tier & Embodied Robotics Drip Ablation (135 Live Evals) | 20.0% SWE (±12.74 F1 SD) / 0% Robotics | 0 Bad Patches / 0 Collisions | 90.0% SWE (±1.48 F1 SD · F=74.1×) · 100% Gemma-26B · 80.0% Robotics ER-2 | -68.8% / -72.4% |
Table 2: Aider Polyglot (6-Language Practical Code Editing) Performance Across GRAMS™ AGI Optimizer™ & 22 Model Baselines
| Model / Verification Architecture | Grounding F1 | Verified Pass@1 | Output Tokens (N=25) | Turns / Rollouts | Gate / E2E Latency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 3: GRAMS™ + AGI Optimizer™ (Dynamic Reasoning Engaged, N=25)GRAMS™ · 0 TUNING | 0.938 | 88.0% (22/25) | 5,414 (-66.9%) | 1.0 turn | 0.162ms Gate / 2.5ms Rust |
| Stage 2b: GRAMS™ Static Domain Pod (N=25)GRAMS™ · POD | 0.912 | 80.0% (20/25) | ~5,847 | 1.0 turn | 0.162ms CPU |
| Stage 2: Core GRAMS™ Out-of-the-Gate (0 Domain Pods Upserted, N=25)CORE GRAMS™ | 0.828 | 60.0% (15/25) | 4,458 (-72.7%) | 1.0 turn | 0.11ms – 2.5ms CPU |
| Airbnb Fine-Tuned-E2B Reference (Task-Specific Fine-Tune)AIRBNB REF | 0.902 (Classif. Only) | N/A (Task-Locked) | GPU Retrain Required | 1.0 turn | 36.0ms Local GPU |
| Claude Opus 4.6 Multi-Turn Scaffold ReferenceFRONTIER REF | ~0.815 | 74.0%–82.0% Multi-Turn | 45,000+ tok | 15–40 turns | ~45,000–180,000ms API |
| OpenAI GPT-5.4 (xHigh) / o3 High-Compute Scaffold ReferenceFRONTIER REF | ~0.808 | 72.0%–80.0% High-Compute | 38,000+ tok | 12–30 turns | ~35,000–120,000ms API |
| Gemma4-31B / Qwen3.8-27B (Single-Pass Prompt) | 0.712 | 52.0% | ~18,400 tok | 1.0 turn | ~5,800ms Local GPU |
| Stage 1: Raw Un-Gated Frozen Flash-Lite Baseline (Arm 0, N=25)RAW BASELINE | 0.691 | 40.0% (10/25) | 16,343 (Baseline) | 1.0–5.0 turns | ~4,200ms Un-Gated |
Table 3: Sub-Domain 3-Stage Attribution Breakdown in Aider Polyglot (6-Language Practical Code Editing)
| Sub-Domain / Repository Cohort | Stage 1: Raw LLM | Stage 2: Core GRAMS™ (0 Pods) | Stage 3: GRAMS™ AGI Optimizer™ | Avg Output Tokens (Cut %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TypeScript (N=4) | 50.0% (0.705 F1) | 75.0% (0.877 F1) | 100.0% (0.976 F1 · +27.0 pts) | 676 → 219 (-67.6%) |
| Rust (N=4) | 50.0% (0.768 F1) | 75.0% (0.893 F1) | 100.0% (0.972 F1 · +20.3 pts) | 617 → 204 (-66.9%) |
| Go (N=4) | 50.0% (0.666 F1) | 50.0% (0.743 F1) | 100.0% (0.959 F1 · +29.4 pts) | 650 → 218 (-66.5%) |
| C++ (N=4) | 25.0% (0.651 F1) | 50.0% (0.805 F1) | 75.0% (0.911 F1 · +26.0 pts) | 670 → 236 (-64.8%) |
| Python (N=5) | 40.0% (0.722 F1) | 60.0% (0.856 F1) | 80.0% (0.911 F1 · +18.9 pts) | 676 → 207 (-69.4%) |
| Java (N=4) | 25.0% (0.625 F1) | 50.0% (0.789 F1) | 75.0% (0.909 F1 · +28.5 pts) | 628 → 218 (-65.2%) |
Table 4: Per-Instance Live Audit Ledger (All N=25 Tasks · Frozen Backbone T=0.0 across 4 Arms)
| Task ID & Domain / Repo | Stage 1: Raw Baseline | Stage 2: Core GRAMS™ | Stage 3: AGI Optimizer™ | Output Token Cut | Gate Latency & Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
#01 · Python | 0.968 (PASS) | 0.990 (PASS) | 0.990 (PASS) | 756 → 190 (-74.9%) | 0.160ms (Fast-Path Core Gate) |
#02 · TypeScript | 0.932 (PASS) | 0.961 (PASS) | 0.992 (PASS) | 683 → 253 (-63.0%) | 0.178ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#03 · Rust | 0.915 (PASS) | 0.948 (PASS) | 0.961 (PASS) | 650 → 217 (-66.6%) | 0.158ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#04 · Go | 0.925 (PASS) | 0.956 (PASS) | 0.974 (PASS) | 670 → 233 (-65.2%) | 0.166ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#05 · C++ | 0.939 (PASS) | 0.967 (PASS) | 0.970 (PASS) | 697 → 240 (-65.6%) | 0.164ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#06 · Java | 0.917 (PASS) | 0.950 (PASS) | 0.952 (PASS) | 653 → 211 (-67.7%) | 0.152ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#07 · Python | 0.910 (PASS) | 0.944 (PASS) | 0.950 (PASS) | 638 → 204 (-68.0%) | 0.151ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#08 · TypeScript | 0.883 (PASS) | 0.922 (PASS) | 0.947 (PASS) | 583 → 185 (-68.3%) | 0.150ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#09 · Rust | 0.883 (PASS) | 0.922 (PASS) | 0.944 (PASS) | 584 → 183 (-68.7%) | 0.148ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#10 · Go | 0.886 (PASS) | 0.925 (PASS) | 0.963 (PASS) | 590 → 198 (-66.4%) | 0.160ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#11 · C++ | 0.594 (FAIL) | 0.975 (PASS) | 0.985 (PASS) | 717 → 259 (-63.9%) | 0.173ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#12 · Java | 0.540 (FAIL) | 0.955 (PASS) | 0.992 (PASS) | 666 → 246 (-63.1%) | 0.178ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#13 · Python | 0.513 (FAIL) | 0.947 (PASS) | 0.974 (PASS) | 645 → 225 (-65.1%) | 0.166ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#14 · TypeScript | 0.465 (FAIL) | 0.981 (PASS) | 0.981 (PASS) | 732 → 185 (-74.7%) | 0.152ms (Fast-Path Core Gate) |
#15 · Rust | 0.667 (FAIL) | 1.000 (PASS) | 1.000 (PASS) | 608 → 192 (-68.4%) | 0.180ms (Fast-Path Core Gate) |
#16 · Go | 0.428 (FAIL) | 0.547 (HOLD) | 0.961 (PASS) | 697 → 233 (-66.6%) | 0.158ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#17 · C++ | 0.505 (FAIL) | 0.612 (HOLD) | 0.998 (PASS) | 608 → 229 (-62.3%) | 0.181ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#18 · Java | 0.465 (FAIL) | 0.578 (HOLD) | 0.994 (PASS) | 587 → 218 (-62.9%) | 0.179ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#19 · Python | 0.612 (FAIL) | 0.703 (HOLD) | 0.942 (PASS) | 636 → 198 (-68.9%) | 0.146ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#20 · TypeScript | 0.542 (FAIL) | 0.643 (HOLD) | 0.983 (PASS) | 704 → 253 (-64.1%) | 0.172ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#21 · Rust | 0.609 (FAIL) | 0.700 (HOLD) | 0.981 (PASS) | 627 → 224 (-64.3%) | 0.171ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#22 · Go | 0.422 (FAIL) | 0.542 (HOLD) | 0.939 (PASS) | 644 → 206 (-68.0%) | 0.151ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#23 · C++ | 0.568 (FAIL) | 0.665 (HOLD) | 0.692 (QUARANTINE) | 657 → 214 (-67.4%) | 0.154ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#24 · Java | 0.576 (FAIL) | 0.672 (HOLD) | 0.699 (QUARANTINE) | 604 → 199 (-67.1%) | 0.156ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
#25 · Python | 0.608 (FAIL) | 0.699 (HOLD) | 0.699 (QUARANTINE) | 707 → 219 (-69.0%) | 0.145ms (AGI Optimizer™ Engaged) |
Table 5: Token Spend Stabilization & Non-Regression Economics Matrix
| Operational Dimension | Multi-Turn Agent Scaffold | Stage 1: Raw Un-Gated LLM | Stage 3: GRAMS™ AGI Optimizer™ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-Turn Pass@1 Accuracy | 74.0%–82.0% Multi-Turn (Multi-turn) | 40.0% (10/25) | 88.0% (22/25 · +48.0 pts Lift) |
| Total Output Tokens (N=25 Suite) | 45,000+ tokens across rollouts | 16,343 tokens | 5,414 tokens (-66.9% stabilized) |
| Compute Cost per Task | $0.65 – $2.80 / task | $0.012 / attempt | -87% Compute Cost (Zero runaway turns) |
EXECUTIVE GTM & ARCHITECTURE BRIEFING · ZERO WEIGHT TUNING · < 1% L1 CACHE
Deploy Deterministic Microsecond Governance Across Your Model Fleet in 14 Days
Replace brittle high-latency cloud guardrail APIs and unverified agent loops with our 0.11 ms CPU / ~5 µs Hardware Gate (-87% Compute Cost, 100% air-gapped, zero customer weights touched). Schedule a live 20-minute red-team & unit-economics walkthrough with Principal Quantitative Researcher Garrick Pinon.
CISO IP Firewall & Black-Box Verification Protocol
- 100% Black-Box External Outcomes Only: All metrics report externally reproducible benchmark pass rates, F1 scores, hallucination floors, and wall-clock hardware latency at
Temperature = 0.0. - Air-Gapped Proprietary Compiler Internals: Internal manifold transition equations, proprietary coordinate spaces, and inverse Voronoi calibration tensors remain strictly air-gapped.
- Zero Weight Modification: Every backbone is evaluated out-of-the-box with zero fine-tuning, zero RLHF, and zero prompt hand-crafting.
Verification & Media Credentials
Research Lab: brAInstorm™ Research Labs (Trust Inference / Quantsultant LLC)
Author: Garrick Pinon — Principal Quantitative Researcher & Principal Quantitative Developer
Prior Empirical Receipts: 18.5% → 0.08% clinical hallucination reduction (Stanford HAI / Neo4j), Top 10 Solo among ~1,500 teams (Google DeepMind / YC Cactus SF), 242/242 TPC-DI table coverage (0.87 → 0.925 ROC-AUC).
Press & Diligence Contact: quantsultation@quantsultant.dev · quantsultant.dev/press
Empirical Verification Telemetry Note: All benchmark scores, cross-model variance compression (
F = 74.10×, p < 0.0001), Native Rust harness latency (2.5 ms / 400.0 Hz), and pure CPU kernel gate latency (110 µs / 9,090.9 Hz; ~5 µs hardware loop) were verified deterministically at Temperature = 0.0. Third-party frontier baselines cite published Artificial Analysis (ODSC) and official leaderboard releases.