SimpleBench

Where Everyday Human Reasoning Still Surpasses Frontier Models

SimpleBench Team

Introduction

We introduce SimpleBench, a multiple-choice text benchmark for LLMs where individuals with unspecialized (high school) knowledge outperform SOTA models. SimpleBench includes over 200 questions covering spatio-temporal reasoning, social intelligence, and what we call linguistic adversarial robustness (or trick questions). For the vast majority of text-based benchmarks LLMs outperform a non-specialized human, and increasingly, exceed expert human performance. However, on SimpleBench, a non-specialized human baseline is 83.7%, based on our small sample of nine participants, outperforming all 13 tested LLMs, including o1-preview, which scored 41.7%. While we expect model performance to improve over time, the results of SimpleBench confirm that the memorized knowledge, and approximate reasoning retrieval, utilized by frontier LLMs is not always enough to answer basic questions just yet.

Powered by Weave, from : Click here to learn more about Weave

Leaderboard

Rank Model Score (AVG@5) Organization
- Human Baseline* 83.7%
1stNEW Gemini 3 Pro Preview 76.4% Google
2nd Gemini 2.5 Pro (06-05) 62.4% Google
3rd GPT-5 Pro 61.6% OpenAI
4th Grok 4 60.5% xAI
5th Claude 4.1 Opus 60.0% Anthropic
6th Claude 4 Opus 58.8% Anthropic
7th GPT-5 (high) 56.7% OpenAI
8thNEW Grok 4.1 Fast 56.0% xAI
9th Claude 4.5 Sonnet 54.3% Anthropic
10thNEW GPT-5.1 (high) 53.2% OpenAI
11th o3 (high) 53.1% OpenAI
12th Gemini 2.5 Pro (03-25) 51.6% Google
13th Claude 3.7 Sonnet (thinking) 46.4% Anthropic
14th Claude 4 Sonnet (thinking) 45.5% Anthropic
15th Claude 3.7 Sonnet 44.9% Anthropic
16th o1-preview 41.7% OpenAI
17th Claude 3.5 Sonnet 10-22 41.4% Anthropic
18th Gemini 2.5 Flash (latest) 41.2% Google
19th DeepSeek R1 05/28 40.8% DeepSeek
20th o1-2024-12-17 (high) 40.1% OpenAI
21st DeepSeek V3.1 40.0% DeepSeek
22nd Kimi K2 Thinking 39.6% Moonshot AI
23rd o4-mini (high) 38.7% OpenAI
24th o1-2024-12-17 (med) 36.7% OpenAI
25th Grok 3 36.1% xAI
26th GPT-4.5 34.5% OpenAI
27th Gemini-exp-1206 31.1% Google
28th Qwen3 235B-A22B 31.0% Alibaba
29th DeepSeek R1 30.9% DeepSeek
30th Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking 30.7% Google
31st Llama 4 Maverick 27.7% Meta
32nd Claude 3.5 Sonnet 06-20 27.5% Anthropic
33rd DeepSeek V3 03-24 27.2% DeepSeek
34th Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 27.1% Google
35th GPT-4.1 27.0% OpenAI
36th Kimi K2 26.3% Kimi AI
37th GPT-4 Turbo 25.1% OpenAI
38thNEW MiniMax M2 25.0% MiniMax
39th Claude 3 Opus 23.5% Anthropic
40th Llama 3.1 405b instruct 23.0% Meta
41st o3-mini (high) 22.8% OpenAI
42nd Grok 2 22.7% xAI
43rd Mistral Large v2 22.5% Mistral
44th GPT-OSS 120B 22.1% OpenAI
45th Llama 3.3 70b instruct 19.9% Meta
46th DeepSeek V3 18.9% DeepSeek
47th Gemini 2.0 Flash Exp 18.9% Google
48th o1-mini 18.1% OpenAI
49th GPT-4o 08-06 17.8% OpenAI
50th Command R+ 17.4% Cohere
51st GPT-4o mini 10.7% OpenAI
temperature: 0.7, top-p: 0.95 (except o1 series)
*See Human Evaluation section of Report for details on how we calculated Human Baseline.
**We try an engineered prompt to optimize benchmark specific performance. See LLM Eval section of Report for details.

Video Summary

Evaluating Reasoning and Prompting

Performance comparison of different models on selected benchmarks

To assess LLMs fairly, we standardized prompts across all models, directing them to choose the most realistic answer step-by-step (COT). Additionally, we tested a benchmark specific engineered prompt for select models. Prompt engineering showed slight improvements suggesting that while tailored prompts can aid performance, fundamental limitations remain. In the full report, we also hypothesize that the surprising underperformance of GPT4o stems from optimizing for specific industrial applications (math and coding) at the expense of holistic reasoning.

For a deeper dive into our results and our methods, check out the full technical report here.