METR
US non-profit that evaluates the dangerous capabilities of AI models
Profile
- Country
- United States
- Main workplace
- Berkeley, California
- Founded
- Began as ARC Evals in 2022; became independent as METR in December 2023
- Founder
- Beth Barnes
- Type
- Non-profit research organisation (US 501(c)(3)), funded by donations
METR is a US non-profit research organisation that evaluates the risks and capabilities of advanced AI models and informs the public about them. Its name is short for 'Model Evaluation & Threat Research'. It began as ARC Evals, an evaluation team set up in 2022 when the Alignment Research Center (ARC), an AI safety research group, hired Beth Barnes. The team carried out independent evaluations of OpenAI's GPT-4 and Anthropic's Claude in partnership with each company. In December 2023 it spun out of ARC and became a standalone non-profit (US 501(c)(3)) named METR. As of October 2026 Barnes is its CEO, and its main workplace is Berkeley, California.
METR evaluates how long the tasks are that AI can complete without human help, and whether AI has worrying abilities such as carrying out cyberattacks or making itself hard to shut down. In its March 2025 'time horizon' research, it reported that the length of tasks (measured by how long they take human professionals) that AI agents (AI that carries out tasks on people's behalf) can finish with 50% reliability had doubled about every 7 months over 6 years. In a July 2025 experiment, experienced open-source developers actually took 19% longer when using AI tools, yet they themselves felt that AI had sped them up by 20%. METR says it has never accepted funding from AI companies and is funded mainly by donations.
In January 2026 it released Time Horizon 1.1, which increased its set of test tasks from 170 to 228; looking only at the period since 2024, the doubling time came to about 89 days. In May 2026 it published a report on the risk that AI used inside companies could slip out of control, based on non-public information and internal models from Anthropic, Google, Meta and OpenAI, and said this was the first independent assessment of its kind. On 15 October Anthropic announced that it had given six METR employees access to internal tools and systems roughly on par with that of its own risk assessment teams (company-reported). Anthropic said it cannot stop METR from publishing its findings and can only require predefined kinds of confidential information to be redacted.
Sources for this profile (11) · as of Oct 31, 2026
- About METR · METR
- METR – Model Evaluation & Threat Research (home page) · METR
- ARC Evals is now METR · METR
- ARC Evals is spinning out from ARC · METR
- Model Evaluation And Threat Research – Nonprofit Explorer · ProPublica
- Careers – METR · METR
- Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks · METR
- Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity · METR
- Time Horizon 1.1 · METR
- Frontier Risk Report (February to March 2026) · METR
- Anthropic update on independent evaluators · Anthropic
AIMade by AIThis profile was written by AI (Claude) from the 11 sources above (official pages, filings, news reports).How it's made
Records 9
Newest first. Open one to see it with its source.
It described evaluator partnerships in 3 tiers and presented this as the deepest, saying it is in early discussions with other organizations including Hugging Face. It added the caveat that information about model archit
The first follow-up result of the methodology overhaul announced on Feb 24, 2026. It noted again that, in the 2025 study, respondents had overestimated the impact on time taken by 40 percentage points on average
Redesigned the experiment because of selection bias (a growing number of participants refusing to work without AI). It did not retract its 2025 result of 19%, but said developers in early 2026 were likely faster, explici
A case of the issuing organization itself showing that a change in methodology alone moves the numbers. The top model's 50% time horizon of about 5.3 hours is based on this revision and cannot be compared directly with t
A case of the issuing organization itself putting the brakes on its own metric being over-generalized when cited
Laid out 9 common elements across 12 companies' policies and became a de facto quasi-standard document for the industry
A consensus document on CoT monitoring, co-signed by major labs
The first RCT to measure a gap running in opposite directions between perceived and measured speed
Proposed a new coordinate system: time of autonomous work rather than benchmark scores