#xAI

AIArtificial Analysis has added Grok Imagine Video 1.5 Lite to its AA-Video text-to-video leaderboards, including the AA-Video-T2V v2.0 and silent AA-Video-T2V-Silent v2.0 rankings. Readers can compare the model's results directly on those leaderboards or vote for it in the Video Arena.

AIArtificial Analysis reports that Grok Imagine Video 1.5 Lite comes closest to the frontier on AA-Video-T2V v2.0 in Multi-Scene & Narrative, Lighting & Materials, and Text Rendering. It is furthest behind in Dialogue & Lip Sync and Human Anatomy. Compared with Grok Imagine Video 1.5, Lite matches it in Physics and trails on the other nine capabilities, by the least in Multi-Scene & Narrative.

AIAmong models with a Hallucination-Gated All-Pass Rate above 0%, GPT-6 Luna (max), GPT-6.1 Sol (max), Muse Spark 1.3 (max), and Grok 4.7 (xhigh) set the Pareto frontier for score versus cost per task. GPT-6 Luna (max) is the cheapest at about $0.22 per task, scoring 3.3%, while Grok 4.7 (xhigh) leads at about $9.50 per task and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) costs about $4.20. The three Claude models cost about $18 to $22 per task.

AIOnce hallucinations are accounted for, Muse Spark 1.3 (max) drops from 26.7% to 8.9%, leaving Grok 4.7 (xhigh) first on the headline metric at 9.4%. Kimi K3 (max) falls from 16.7% to 5.3%, and Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max with fallback) falls from 11.7% to 2.8%. GPT-6.1 Sol (max) declines least, from 7.5% to 6.9%.

AIArtificial Analysis compared six hallucination checkers on the same deliverables from 20 tasks across eight models. GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna generally flagged the most material hallucinations, while Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash flagged far fewer, with Claude Opus 5.5 falling between Grok 4.7 and Sonnet. The counts reflect checker behavior rather than establishing accuracy or ruling out self-preference.

AIThree Axiom engineers had OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra drive a 2024 Toyota Corolla to an In-N-Out drive-thru through a server linked to cameras and power steering, with a safety driver ready to brake. They also built a parking-lot benchmark, DrivingBench, where Astra completed the course slowly, Claude Fable 5.1 finished 45 percent, and Grok finished 11 percent.

AIARC Prize reports that Grok 4.7's reasoning-token usage correlates with its ARC-AGI-2 public scores. The low setting averaged about 10k tokens per test-pair attempt and scored 25%, while medium through xhigh used 86k to 120k tokens and scored 57.5% to 60%. ARC Prize suggests the lower token usage may help explain the low setting's lower score.

AIARC Prize published full Grok 4.7 results from the xAI model on its public leaderboard. The post links to the leaderboard, a GitHub repository for reproducing the results, and the ARC Prize testing policy.

AIGrok 4.7 scored 1.8% on ARC-AGI-3 in the standard harness, which lets models carry notes between turns, slightly below the 2.1% reported for Grok 4.7 in that setting. In a new provider adapter harness that preserves opaque reasoning and enables auto compaction, the score rose to 10.0%.

AIGrok 4.7 used more reasoning tokens on average than Grok 4.6 on ARC-AGI-2 semi-private tasks at medium, high, and xhigh reasoning levels, raising its cost per task. Per test-pair attempt, medium used 136% more tokens, high 125% more, and xhigh 173% more, while low used 27% fewer. A chart compares the two models at xhigh on the 20 public tasks where Grok 4.7 increased token use the most.