Gemini 4 Carbon Takes First Place on MathArena From GPT 6.1 Sol
For the first time in a very long time, we have a non-OpenAI model as #1 on MathArena! Gemini 4 Carbon takes over the first place from GPT-6.1 Sol, with Fable 5.2 taking #2.
Context
A non OpenAI model in first place on a public math benchmark is a notable shift in who leads on that test, even if the margin is a tie on raw accuracy with a higher cost rival.
Jasper Dekoninck posted on November 13 that for the first time in a very long time, a non OpenAI model is number 1 on MathArena. He says Gemini 4 Carbon takes first place from GPT 6.1 Sol, with Fable 5.2 in second. A leaderboard image in the post, on the ArXivMath overall view, shows Gemini 4 Carbon (high) at 93.62% accuracy and $5.29 in cost, Claude Fable 5.2 (max) also at 93.62% accuracy but $22.28 in cost, GPT 6.1 Sol (max) at 90.43% and $1.21, and Gemini 4 Argon (high) at 82.98%.
Deep dive
Jasper Dekoninck posted a MathArena leaderboard on November 13 and wrote that, for the first time in a very long time, a non OpenAI model is number 1 on MathArena. He says Gemini 4 Carbon takes over first place from GPT 6.1 Sol, with Fable 5.2 taking second.
The image in the post shows the ArXivMath tab with the overall view selected. The first row is Gemini 4 Carbon (high) at 93.62% accuracy, a cost of $5.29, and 207,857 tokens. The second row is Claude Fable 5.2 (max) at the same 93.62% accuracy, a cost of $22.28, and 333,994 tokens. The third row is GPT 6.1 Sol (max) at 90.43% accuracy, a cost of $1.21, and 77,783 tokens. The fourth row is Gemini 4 Argon (high) at 82.98% accuracy, a cost of $3.26, and 205,189 tokens.
On raw accuracy, Carbon and Fable 5.2 are tied. Carbon is listed first and is much cheaper on the cost column shown. GPT 6.1 Sol, the previous leader according to the post, is third on this view and is the cheapest of the four rows. The image also shows per problem cells for problems 1 through 16, with a few marked in pink or yellow, but the post does not explain the color key or the tie break that puts Carbon above Fable 5.2.
These figures are from the screenshot Dekoninck shared. The post does not publish a full methods note in the text, and it does not compare this result with other math benchmarks.
What to expect next
Watch later MathArena updates to see whether Gemini 4 Carbon holds first place, whether OpenAI retakes the top spot, and whether the accuracy tie with Fable 5.2 is broken. Independent reruns, or a methods note, would make the ranking easier to compare with other public math tests. A shift on another math or reasoning board would show whether this lead is specific to MathArena or part of a wider change.