HackerPapers

arXiv:2311.12022cs.AI

GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark

David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, Samuel R. Bowman

Abstract

We present GPQA, a challenging dataset of 448 multiple-choice questions written by domain experts in biology, physics, and chemistry. We ensure that the questions are high-quality and extremely difficult: experts who have or are pursuing PhDs in the corresponding domains reach 65% accuracy (74% when discounting clear mistakes the experts identified in retrospect), while highly skilled non-expert validators only reach 34% accuracy, despite spending on average over 30 minutes with unrestricted access to the web (i.e., the questions are "Google-proof"). The questions are also difficult for state-of-the-art AI systems, with our strongest GPT-4 based baseline achieving 39% accuracy. If we are to use future AI systems to help us answer very hard questions, for example, when developing new scientific knowledge, we need to develop scalable oversight methods that enable humans to supervise their outputs, which may be difficult even if the supervisors are themselves skilled and knowledgeable. The difficulty of GPQA both for skilled non-experts and frontier AI systems should enable realistic scalable oversight experiments, which we hope can help devise ways for human experts to reliably get truthful information from AI systems that surpass human capabilities.

arXiv comments
28 pages, 5 figures, 7 tables
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.CLComputation and Language

On Hacker News

Linked by 4 identifiable commenters in 4 comments across 4 threads, from Mar 2024 to Dec 2025.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments4 threads

    • One of the reported hallucinations in this work [1], starting with David Rein, says the other authors are entirely made up. They are indeed absent from the original cited paper [2], but a Google search shows some of the same names featured in citations from other papers [3] [4].…

      ricardobeatView on HNParent context

    • >I’m not sure how you can have played with LLMs so much and missed this. I hope you don’t trust what they say about recipes or how to handle legal problems or how to clean things or how to treat disease or any fact-checking whatsoever. This is like a GPT3.5 level criticism.…

      vonneumannstanView on HNParent context

    • Those are really sweeping conclusions, considering the experiment is just a single iteration of a single prompt! FWIW, Claude Opus got this for me on the first try: "In the Gilligan's Island episode "Seer Gilligan" (season 3, episode 8), Gilligan gains the ability to read minds…

      apsec112View on HNParent context

  1. Claude 3 model family 1 comment
    • “Claude 3 gets ~60% accuracy on GPQA. It's hard for me to understate how hard these questions are—literal PhDs (in different domains from the questions) [spending over 30 minutes] with access to the internet get 34%. PhDs in the same domain (also with internet access!) get 65%…

      nopinsightView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.