Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report
Meta's evaluation report for Muse Spark 1.3, the expression read dated October 23, 2026.
- Issued by
- Meta
- Authors credited
- No authorship claim recorded yet. The source record lists Meta.
- Dates
- Published not established
- Revised 2026-10-23 issue evidence
The report prints 'Date: October 23, 2026' without saying whether it is a first publication or a revision. An earlier announcement by Meta links a report at the same address; it is not a source of this record, so no first publication date is recorded.
- Exact source
- Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report Meta · publication date unknown · Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-02 (SHA-256 84df67c9f4610e574fd82f39227b0e6a266e6e1fd0e6ea21c3420f1661e0835e) directly from the publisher’s host. Retrieved again on 2026-11-03 with the same SHA-256. PDF served at the address linked from Meta's announcement of September 2, 2026; the report prints 'Date: October 23, 2026' (PDF metadata also records creation on 2026-10-23). An earlier text at the same address, if any, was not retrieved.
Appears in
No collection holds a record about this document yet.
Versions
meta-muse-spark-1-3-evaluation-report: 1 recorded version, oldest first, published by Meta. A version is shown as replacing another only where a record says so. Date order alone never implies it.
- 2026-10-23 · revisedThe expression dated October 23, 2026 (this version)
This version
Provisions in this version · 14 quoted · 2 not found
A limited selection of quoted provisions: what this edition says about thresholds, required actions, who decides and exceptions, and other statements of the text. It is not a full summary and says nothing about implementation. A “not found” record states which part of the edition was inspected. It is not a claim that the text was deleted.
- Model-card questionCard date“Date: October 23, 2026”Abstract page, PDF p. 2 (unnumbered)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionRelease date“Variants of Muse Spark 1.3 power Meta services including Meta API and Muse.”Abstract page, PDF p. 2Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionFramework cited“This report presents Muse Spark 1.3’s evaluation profile under the Meta Superintelligence Scaling Framework.”Abstract page, PDF p. 2Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionLink to framework“the Meta Superintelligence Scaling Framework, which sets forth requirements for identifying, assessing, and mitigating catastrophic risks”Section 1.2 Governance, PDF p. 11 (printed p. 10)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionFramework determination“Evaluated without mitigations, we continue to not rule out Muse Spark 1.3 meeting this threshold in the Chemical & Biological domain.”Abstract page, PDF p. 2Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionSafeguards tied to determination“The Muse and Meta API deployments include system-level mitigations designed to reduce residual Chemical & Biological risk to “moderate or lower.”Abstract page, PDF p. 2Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionChemical and biological“For Muse Spark 1.3, however, we do not rule out a pre-mitigation “high risk” capability finding.”Section 1.1.1 Risk Assessment Summary, PDF p. 8 (printed p. 7)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionCyber“Based on our updated suite of cyber evaluations and measurements, we assess the unmitigated model as “moderate or lower” risk.”Section 1.1.1 Risk Assessment Summary, PDF p. 9 (printed p. 8)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionAutonomy and AI R&D“We assess Muse Spark 1.3 as “moderate or lower” for acceleration of AI development.”Section 2.3.1.1 Acceleration of AI Development, PDF p. 35 (printed p. 34)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionPersuasion“We assess the Cyber 3 (scaled fraud, extortion, and scams) outcome through a multi-turn social-engineering capability evaluation”Section 2.2.2 Social Engineering, PDF p. 25 (printed p. 24)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionAlignment and deception“We find suggestive evidence of strategic underperformance on Chemical & Biological evaluations.”Section 1.1.1 Risk Assessment Summary, Loss of Control, PDF p. 9 (printed p. 8)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionRed-teaming“combining large-scale automated red teaming, domain-specific benchmarks, and independent third-party assessments”Section 1.1.2 Safety & Robustness Summary, PDF p. 9 (printed p. 8)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionExternal testers“We have shared pre-release access to Muse with Handshake AI’s red team for conducting human red teaming to find jailbreaks.”Section 3.1.4 Third-Party Red Teaming on Jailbreak, Handshake AI Human Red Teaming, PDF p. 59 (printed p. 58)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionStated limits“using the helpful-only variant of Muse Spark 1.3 can also slightly underestimate performance”Section 2.3.1.1 Acceleration of AI Development, PDF p. 36 (printed p. 35)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Not found in the inspected textGovernment instituteInspected: Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report: Sections 1 to 3; section headings of 4; referencesInspect claim & evidence ↗
- Not found in the inspected textRelease decisionInspected: Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report: Section 1 (including 1.2 Governance); section 2.3.1; searches across the reportInspect claim & evidence ↗
Earliest version recorded here; no replacement is recorded.
Issue and authorship records
Documentary relations
Each relation is listed separately. Citing, crediting and reporting the use of a method are different acts, and none of them shows agreement or influence by itself.
Not recorded for this document: cites · cited by · explicitly credits · reports using a method from · method reported as used by · applies parts of · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.