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%
1st Gemini 2.5 Pro (06-05) 62.4% Google
2nd Grok 4 60.5% xAI
3rd Claude 4.1 Opus 60.0% Anthropic
4th Claude 4 Opus (thinking) 58.8% Anthropic
5th GPT-5 (high) 56.7% OpenAI
6th o3 (high) 53.1% OpenAI
7th Gemini 2.5 Pro (03-25) 51.6% Google
8th Claude 3.7 Sonnet (thinking) 46.4% Anthropic
9th Claude 4 Sonnet (thinking) 45.5% Anthropic
10th Claude 3.7 Sonnet 44.9% Anthropic
11th o1-preview 41.7% OpenAI
12th Claude 3.5 Sonnet 10-22 41.4% Anthropic
13th DeepSeek R1 05/28 40.8% DeepSeek
14th o1-2024-12-17 (high) 40.1% OpenAI
15th o4-mini (high) 38.7% OpenAI
16th o1-2024-12-17 (med) 36.7% OpenAI
17th Grok 3 36.1% xAI
18th GPT-4.5 34.5% OpenAI
19th Gemini-exp-1206 31.1% Google
20th Qwen3 235B-A22B 31.0% Alibaba
21st DeepSeek R1 30.9% DeepSeek
22nd Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking 30.7% Google
23rd Llama 4 Maverick 27.7% Meta
24th Claude 3.5 Sonnet 06-20 27.5% Anthropic
25th DeepSeek V3 03-24 27.2% DeepSeek
26th Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 27.1% Google
27th GPT-4.1 27.0% OpenAI
28th Kimi K2 26.3% Kimi AI
29th GPT-4 Turbo 25.1% OpenAI
30th Claude 3 Opus 23.5% Anthropic
31st Llama 3.1 405b instruct 23.0% Meta
32nd o3-mini (high) 22.8% OpenAI
33rd Grok 2 22.7% xAI
34th Mistral Large v2 22.5% Mistral
35th GPT-OSS 120B 22.1% OpenAI
36th Llama 3.3 70b instruct 19.9% Meta
37th DeepSeek V3 18.9% DeepSeek
38th Gemini 2.0 Flash Exp 18.9% Google
39th o1-mini 18.1% OpenAI
40th GPT-4o 08-06 17.8% OpenAI
41st Command R+ 17.4% Cohere
42nd 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.