Are Large Language Models Truly Smarter Than Humans?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.16197v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 07:23:57 GMT
• Title: Are Large Language Models Truly Smarter Than Humans?
• Abstract summary: Public leaderboards suggest that large language models (LLMs) surpass human experts on benchmarks spanning academic knowledge, law, and programming.<n>This paper presents three complementary experiments forming a rigorous contamination audit of six frontier LLMs.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Public leaderboards increasingly suggest that large language models (LLMs) surpass human experts on benchmarks spanning academic knowledge, law, and programming. Yet most benchmarks are fully public, their questions widely mirrored across the internet, creating systematic risk that models were trained on the very data used to evaluate them. This paper presents three complementary experiments forming a rigorous multi-method contamination audit of six frontier LLMs: GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, DeepSeek-R1, DeepSeek-V3, Llama-3.3-70B, and Qwen3-235B. Experiment 1 applies a lexical contamination detection pipeline to 513 MMLU questions across all 57 subjects, finding an overall contamination rate of 13.8% (18.1% in STEM, up to 66.7% in Philosophy) and estimated performance gains of +0.030 to +0.054 accuracy points by category. Experiment 2 applies a paraphrase and indirect-reference diagnostic to 100 MMLU questions, finding accuracy drops by an average of 7.0 percentage points under indirect reference, rising to 19.8 pp in both Law and Ethics. Experiment 3 applies TS-Guessing behavioral probes to all 513 questions and all six models, finding that 72.5% trigger memorization signals far above chance, with DeepSeek-R1 displaying a distributed memorization signature (76.6% partial reconstruction, 0% verbatim recall) that explains its anomalous Experiment 2 profile. All three experiments converge on the same contamination ranking: STEM > Professional > Social Sciences > Humanities.

Related papers

• NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment [54.4265627247104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T08:34:56Z)
• Evaluating the Safety of Deep Learning-Based Brain MRI Reconstruction [0.0]
  Deep learning can erase lesions or synthesize false tissue, but failures pixel-averaged metrics like PSNR and SSIM miss.<n>Following PRISMA 2020, we searched seven databases without date limits, including 263 studies (1995-2026)<n>Only 18 of 263 studies (6.8%) recorded both a fidelity metric and reader assessment on identical data, leaving the central surrogate unmeasured.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-28T08:08:14Z)
• Evaluating Deep Research Agents on Expert Consulting Work: A Benchmark with Verifiers, Rubrics, and Cognitive Traps [0.0]
  Frontier deep research agents (DRAs) plan a research task, synthesize across documents, and return a structured deliverable on demand.<n>Existing benchmarks measure factual recall, single-hop QA, or generic agentic skill, missing the multi-document, decision-grade work DRAs are deployed to produce.<n>We grade three frontier agents, namely Claude Opus 4.6 with web search, OpenAI o3-deep-research, and Google Gemini 3.1 Pro deep-research, on 42 SME-authored prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T17:32:52Z)
• Do Benchmarks Underestimate LLM Performance? Evaluating Hallucination Detection With LLM-First Human-Adjudicated Assessment [0.0]
  This study focuses on contextual hallucination detection in summarization tasks.<n>We analyze the QAGS-C and SummEval datasets by comparing original benchmark annotations with reason and span-based predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T20:27:44Z)
• ImplicitMemBench: Measuring Unconscious Behavioral Adaptation in Large Language Models [60.14219417402433]
  Existing memory benchmarks for LLM agents evaluate explicit recall of facts, yet overlook implicit memory where experience becomes automated behavior without conscious retrieval.<n>We introduce ImplicitMemBench, the first systematic benchmark evaluating implicit memory through three constructs drawn from standard cognitive-science accounts of non-declarative memory.<n>Our 300-item suite employs a unified Learning/Priming-Interfere-Test protocol with first-attempt scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T10:26:32Z)
• PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology [48.732366302949515]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety.<n>We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions.<n>We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T00:50:39Z)
• Deep Learning for Accurate Vision-based Catch Composition in Tropical Tuna Purse Seiners [1.9503589459693256]
  We quantify the difficulty experts face to distinguish bigeye tuna from yellowfin tuna using images captured by electronic monitoring systems.<n>We present a multi-stage pipeline to estimate the species composition of the catches using a reliable ground-truth dataset.<n>We found that the latest performs the best, with a validation mean average precision of 0.66 $pm$ 0.03 and a recall of 0.88 $pm$ 0.03.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T14:26:04Z)
• Shoot First, Ask Questions Later? Building Rational Agents that Explore and Act Like People [81.63702981397408]
  Given limited resources, to what extent do agents based on language models (LMs) act rationally?<n>We develop methods to benchmark and enhance agentic information-seeking, drawing on insights from human behavior.<n>For Spotter agents, our approach boosts accuracy by up to 14.7% absolute over LM-only baselines; for Captain agents, it raises expected information gain (EIG) by up to 0.227 bits (94.2% of the achievable noise ceiling)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T17:57:28Z)
• Emulating Public Opinion: A Proof-of-Concept of AI-Generated Synthetic Survey Responses for the Chilean Case [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising avenues for methodological and applied innovations in survey research.<n>We evaluate the reliability of LLM-generated synthetic survey responses against ground-truth human responses from a Chilean public opinion probabilistic survey.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-11T21:43:59Z)
• Fact or Facsimile? Evaluating the Factual Robustness of Modern Retrievers [34.31192184496381]
  Dense retrievers and rerankers are central to retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines.<n>We evaluate how much factual competence these components inherit or lose from large language models (LLMs) they are based on.<n>For every embedding model, cosine-similarity scores between queries and correct completions are significantly higher than those for incorrect ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T04:13:51Z)
• Benchmarking Reasoning Robustness in Large Language Models [76.79744000300363]
  We find significant performance degradation on novel or incomplete data.<n>These findings highlight the reliance on recall over rigorous logical inference.<n>This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed as Math-RoB, that exploits hallucinations triggered by missing information to expose reasoning gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T15:36:06Z)
• Exploring Response Uncertainty in MLLMs: An Empirical Evaluation under Misleading Scenarios [49.53589774730807]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently achieved state-of-the-art performance on tasks ranging from visual question answering to video understanding.<n>We reveal a response uncertainty phenomenon: twelve state-of-the-art open-source MLLMs overturn a previously correct answer in 65% of cases after receiving a single deceptive cue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T01:11:28Z)
• A Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Mental Illnesses [0.8458496687170665]
  GPT-4 and Llama 3 exhibited superior performance in binary disorder detection, with accuracies reaching up to 85% on certain datasets. prompt engineering played a crucial role in enhancing model performance. Despite promising results, our analysis identified several challenges, including variability in performance across datasets and the need for careful prompt engineering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T02:58:52Z)
• Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samples [49.18977581962162]
  Large language models are increasingly trained on all the data ever produced by humans. Many have raised concerns about the trustworthiness of public benchmarks due to potential contamination in pre-training or fine-tuning datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T17:35:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.