The official technical report shows that LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is strongest on tool search, complex Agent environments, and noise robustness, but its scores come from vendor-designed environments and test protocols and cannot be treated directly as independently replicated cross-model results.
Model: An MoE reasoning model with 560B total parameters and approximately 27B average active parameters.
Training/inference environment: DORA multi-environment reinforcement learning; the report says it covers 10,000+ environments across 20+ domains and can support up to 32,000 concurrent environments.
Agent environment: The tool dependency graph contains 60+ tools; tasks are verified in executable environments, and the code-Agent sandbox provides search, file read/write, code editing, and shell capabilities.
Heavy Thinking: Multiple trajectories are generated in parallel to expand reasoning breadth, then summary and recursive feedback expand depth; the official description says a relatively high reasoning temperature is used to preserve trajectory diversity.
Evaluation protocol: Multiple task groups covering search, tool calling, noisy environments, random complex tasks, mathematics, general question answering, and coding; some metrics are Avg@4/Avg@16 or Pass@1.
For standard tool-Agent tasks, provide an executable tool environment and record the complete tool trajectory.
For the Heavy Thinking comparison, record ordinary reasoning and the multi-trajectory plus summary-recursion mode separately; do not reduce them to a single temperature parameter.
For noise tests, inject environmental uncertainty into the same tasks and report clean and noise results separately.
For random complex tasks, use randomly generated tool sets and executable environments, recording the random seed, tool graph, and task answer.
The report/official model card gives the following results for LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601:
| Task | Result | Reproduction note |
|---|---|---|
| BrowseComp | 56.6 / 73.1 | The page reports ordinary and context-management conditions together; preserve the original order when reproducing |
| BrowseComp-zh | 69.0 / 77.7 | The official note says 24 annotation-error cases were manually revised |
| RW Search | 79.5 | Agent search Pass@1 |
| τ²-Avg | 88.2 | Average of four runs |
| τ²-Noise | 67.1 | Average of four runs with environmental noise injected |
| VitaBench / VitaBench-Noise | 29.3 / 20.5 | The noise condition substantially lowers the result |
| Random Complex Tasks | 35.8 | Random-environment generalization test |
| AIME-25 Avg@16 | 99.6 / 100.0‡ | ‡ denotes Heavy Thinking |
| GPQA-Diamond Avg@16 | 80.5 / 85.2‡ | ‡ denotes Heavy Thinking |
| SWE-bench Verified Avg@5 | 70.0 | Coding task |
The report summary presents BrowseComp 73.1, RW Search 77.7, τ²-Bench 88.2, and VitaBench 29.3 as representative Agent results; the web table and summary differ in metric naming/conditions, so reproduction should follow the table and footnotes.
Suitable for: Agent tasks that require search, tool-chain orchestration, complex dependency graphs, and recovery in imperfect environments.
May not be dominant for: Pure general question answering or tasks that disallow tools; HLE text-only is 25.2 in the official table, so Agent scores cannot substitute for tool-free ability.
Important boundary: Heavy Thinking's gains come from additional trajectories and recursive summarization, implying higher reasoning cost rather than a free improvement from an ordinary single call.
This is the model team's own technical report; environment construction, annotation revisions, sampling budgets, and implementation details were not fully independently audited.
Comparisons marked with † in the table come from other public reports; some results marked with * are tool-free scores. These should not be mixed directly with independent measurements under the same protocol.
The 24 BrowseComp-zh revisions and environment fixes for τ²-Airline based on other reports both affect cross-model comparison.
The report does not provide a complete, directly runnable benchmark harness, random seeds, or all environment assets. Reproduction requires further verification with the official repository/team.
Fix the 2601 weights, inference engine, tool schema, context-management strategy, and sampling budget.
Run a tool-free/ordinary-mode baseline first, then the tool mode; record Avg@4, Avg@16, Pass@1, and failure types separately.
Run the same tasks in clean and noise environments, retaining the noise type and intensity.
If implementing Heavy Thinking, save every parallel trajectory, the summary input, and the number of recursive rounds, and report the additional token count and wall-clock time.
List the “official revision/fix” versions of BrowseComp-zh and τ²-Airline separately to avoid confusing them with the original data.
The technical report describes DORA multi-environment RL, an environmental-noise curriculum, random complex-task synthesis, and Heavy Thinking; the figures above come from the report/model-card result tables and footnotes, without secondary inference.
The official results are useful for deciding whether to test tool Agents and Heavy Thinking, but are not promises about latency, cost, or success rate for a target business. Deployers must re-test with their own tools, noise, and task sets.
The report's core design sends multiple independent trajectories into a summary stage and feeds the result back recursively; this explains both its potential gains on hard problems and its additional reasoning overhead.
LongCat Flash Thinking
