Humanity's Last Exam

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) is a language model benchmark consisting of over 2,500 expert-level questions across a broad range of subjects. It was created jointly by the Center for AI Safety and Scale AI, and was designed to test reasoning abilities and human-like intelligence, as opposed to just pattern recognition.

History

Benchmark tests like Humanity's Last Exam have long been used to evaluate reasoning and learning capabilities in machines.[1] Early benchmarks, such as the Turing test, measured whether machines could demonstrate human-like conversation abilities.[2] Other early benchmark tests evaluated computer vision, like MNIST for handwritten digit recognition and ImageNet for continual image classification.[3] The emergence of large language models (LLMs) in the 2020s led to the advancement and evolution of benchmark tests, with a focus on emphasizing interpretability, reproducibility, and clearer evaluation criteria. Recent foundation model benchmarks, such as MMLU, HellaSwag, and ARC Challenge, illustrate this shift.[4]

Creation

Humanity’s Last Exam was created to parallel the quick progression of LLMs and provide a proper assessment of these models. Previous benchmarks evaluated LLMs with about 90% correctness creating the need for a more difficult exam.[5] Stanford HAI's AI Index 2025 Annual Report cites Humanity's Last Exam as one of the "more challenging benchmarks" developed in response to the popular AI benchmarks having reached "saturation".[6] The test has been described as the brainchild of Dan Hendrycks, a machine learning researcher and the director of the Center for AI Safety, who stated that he was inspired to create the test after a conversation with Elon Musk, who thought the existing language model benchmarks, such as the MMLU, were too easy. Hendrycks worked with Scale AI to compile the questions.[7] The questions were crowdsourced from subject matter experts from various institutions across the world.[8][9] The questions were first filtered by the leading AI models; if the models failed to answer the question or did worse than random guessing on the multiple-choice questions, they were reviewed by human experts for accuracy and wording in two rounds, and then approved for inclusion in the dataset. The submitters of the top-rated questions were given prize money from a pool of 500,000 U.S. dollars—$5000 for each of the top 50 questions and $500 for the next 500. After the initial release, a "community feedback bug bounty program" was opened to "identify and remove major errors in the dataset".[9] AI systems are able to surpass more focused, task-oriented tests, yet few are able to perform well on broader, general ability assessments.[10] HLE was designed to test reasoning abilities, which are considered a metric of “human” intelligence.[11]

Composition

The benchmark consists of 2,500 questions in the publicly released set. The paper classifies the questions into the following broad subjects: mathematics (41%), physics (9%), biology/medicine (11%), humanities/social science (9%), computer science/artificial intelligence (10%), engineering (4%), chemistry (7%), and other (9%). Around 14% of the questions require the ability to understand both text and images, i.e., multi-modality. 24% of the questions are multiple-choice; the rest are short-answer, exact-match questions. A private set is also maintained to test for benchmark overfitting.[9]

An example question:[7]

Hummingbirds within Apodiformes uniquely have a bilaterally paired oval bone, a sesamoid embedded in the caudolateral portion of the expanded, cruciate aponeurosis of insertion of m. depressor caudae. How many paired tendons are supported by this sesamoid bone? Answer with a number.

An independent investigation by FutureHouse, published in July 2025, suggested that around 30% of the HLE answers for text-only chemistry and biology questions could be incorrect; the benchmark's team partially replicated the findings, and said they hope to institute a continuous revisions process.[12]

Results

Performance of various models on the benchmark
Organization Model Accuracy (%) ↑ Calibration Error (%) ↓
Google DeepMind Gemini 3 Pro Preview 37.52 57
OpenAI GPT-5 Pro 31.64 49
Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 (Thinking) 25.20 55
Z.ai GLM 4.5 8.32 79
Meta AI Llama 4 Maverick 5.68 83
Mistral AI Mistral Medium 3 4.52 77
Amazon Web Services Nova Pro 4.40 80
Source: Scale AI. 26 November 2025.
Performance of various non-multimodal models on the text-only subset of the benchmark
Organization Model Accuracy (%) ↑ Calibration Error (%) ↓
OpenAI gpt-oss-120b 15.48 76
Alibaba Cloud Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 15.43 78
DeepSeek DeepSeek-R1-0528 14.04 78
Moonshot AI Kimi-K2-Instruct 4.68 82
Amazon Web Services Nova Micro 4.41 84
Source: Scale AI. 30 August 2025.

References

  1. ^ "Humanity's Last Exam: The AI Benchmark for LLM Reasoning". IntuitionLabs. Retrieved 2025-11-20.
  2. ^ Pinar Saygin, Ayse; Cicekli, Ilyas; Akman, Varol (2000-11-01). "Turing Test: 50 Years Later". Minds and Machines. 10 (4): 463–518. doi:10.1023/A:1011288000451. ISSN 1572-8641.
  3. ^ Faber, Kamil; Zurek, Dominik; Pietron, Marcin; Japkowicz, Nathalie; Vergari, Antonio; Corizzo, Roberto (2024-10-01). "From MNIST to ImageNet and back: benchmarking continual curriculum learning". Machine Learning. 113 (10): 8137–8164. doi:10.1007/s10994-024-06524-z. ISSN 1573-0565.
  4. ^ Reuel, Anka (20 November 2024). "BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices". arXiv.
  5. ^ Phan, Long; et al. (2025). "Humanity's Last Exam". arXiv:2501.14249 [cs.LG].
  6. ^ Maslej, Nestor; et al. (April 2025). The AI Index 2025 Annual Report (PDF) (Report). Institute for Human-Centered AI. pp. 141–142.
  7. ^ a b Roose, Kevin (23 January 2025). "When A.I. Passes This Test, Look Out". New York Times. Archived from the original on 29 January 2025. Retrieved 24 January 2025.
  8. ^ Dastin, Jeffrey; Paul, Katie (16 September 2024). "AI experts ready 'Humanity's Last Exam' to stump powerful tech". Reuters. Archived from the original on 8 April 2025. Retrieved 24 January 2025.
  9. ^ a b c Phan, Long; et al. (2025). "Humanity's Last Exam". arXiv:2501.14249 [cs.LG].
  10. ^ José Hernández-Orallo (2016). Evaluation in artificial intelligence: From task-oriented to ability-oriented measurement. Artificial Intelligence Review. 1-51. doi:10.1007/s10462-016- 9505-7. url: https://riunet.upv.es/server/api/core/bitstreams/52884250-5f37-43f6-b966-014799bfac28/content
  11. ^ "Humanity's Last Exam: AI vs Human Benchmark Results | Galileo". Galileo AI. Retrieved 2025-11-20.
  12. ^ Skarlinski, Michael; Laurent, Jon; Bou, Albert; White, Andrew (16 September 2025). "About 30% of Humanity's Last Exam chemistry/biology answers are likely wrong". FutureHouse. Retrieved 15 October 2025.