General-purpose large language models outperform specialized clinical AI tools on medical benchmarks

SimpleQA Verified: A Reliable Factuality Benchmark to Measure Parametric Knowledge

We introduce SimpleQA Verified, a 1,000-prompt benchmark for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) short-form factuality based on OpenAI's SimpleQA. It addresses critical limitations in OpenAI's benchmark, including noisy and incorrect labels, topical biases, and question redundancy. SimpleQA Verified was created through a rigorous multi-stage filtering process involving de-duplication, topic balancing, and source reconciliation to produce a more reliable and challenging evaluation set, alongside improvements in the autorater prompt. On this new benchmark, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieves a state-of-the-art F1-score of 55.6, outperforming other frontier models, including GPT-5. This work provides the research community with a higher-fidelity tool to track genuine progress in parametric model factuality and to mitigate hallucinations. The benchmark dataset, evaluation code, and leaderboard are available at: https://www.kaggle.com/benchmarks/deepmind/simpleqa-verified.

SimpleQA Verified: A Reliable Factuality Benchmark to Measure Parametric Knowledge

We introduce SimpleQA Verified, a 1,000-prompt benchmark for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) short-form factuality based on OpenAI's SimpleQA. It addresses critical limitations in OpenAI's benchmark, including noisy and incorrect labels, topical biases, and question redundancy. SimpleQA Verified was created through a rigorous multi-stage filtering process involving de-duplication, topic balancing, and source reconciliation to produce a more reliable and challenging evaluation set, alongside improvements in the autorater prompt. On this new benchmark, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieves a state-of-the-art F1-score of 55.6, outperforming other frontier models, including GPT-5. This work provides the research community with a higher-fidelity tool to track genuine progress in parametric model factuality and to mitigate hallucinations. The benchmark dataset, evaluation code, and leaderboard are available at: https://www.kaggle.com/benchmarks/deepmind/simpleqa-verified.

Reliability of LLMs as medical assistants for the general public: a randomized preregistered study

Global healthcare providers are exploring the use of large language models (LLMs) to provide medical advice to the public. LLMs now achieve nearly perfect scores on medical licensing exams, but this does not necessarily translate to accurate performance in real-world settings. We tested whether LLMs can assist members of the public in identifying underlying conditions and choosing a course of action (disposition) in ten medical scenarios in a controlled study with 1,298 participants. Participants were randomly assigned to receive assistance from an LLM (GPT-4o, Llama 3, Command R+) or a source of their choice (control). Tested alone, LLMs complete the scenarios accurately, correctly identifying conditions in 94.9% of cases and disposition in 56.3% on average. However, participants using the same LLMs identified relevant conditions in fewer than 34.5% of cases and disposition in fewer than 44.2%, both no better than the control group. We identify user interactions as a challenge to the deployment of LLMs for medical advice. Standard benchmarks for medical knowledge and simulated patient interactions do not predict the failures we find with human participants. Moving forward, we recommend systematic human user testing to evaluate interactive capabilities before public deployments in healthcare.

Reliability of LLMs as medical assistants for the general public: a randomized preregistered study

Global healthcare providers are exploring the use of large language models (LLMs) to provide medical advice to the public. LLMs now achieve nearly perfect scores on medical licensing exams, but this does not necessarily translate to accurate performance in real-world settings. We tested whether LLMs can assist members of the public in identifying underlying conditions and choosing a course of action (disposition) in ten medical scenarios in a controlled study with 1,298 participants. Participants were randomly assigned to receive assistance from an LLM (GPT-4o, Llama 3, Command R+) or a source of their choice (control). Tested alone, LLMs complete the scenarios accurately, correctly identifying conditions in 94.9% of cases and disposition in 56.3% on average. However, participants using the same LLMs identified relevant conditions in fewer than 34.5% of cases and disposition in fewer than 44.2%, both no better than the control group. We identify user interactions as a challenge to the deployment of LLMs for medical advice. Standard benchmarks for medical knowledge and simulated patient interactions do not predict the failures we find with human participants. Moving forward, we recommend systematic human user testing to evaluate interactive capabilities before public deployments in healthcare.

This Treatment Works, Right? Evaluating LLM Sensitivity to Patient Question Framing in Medical QA

Patients are increasingly turning to large language models (LLMs) with medical questions that are complex and difficult to articulate clearly. However, LLMs are sensitive to prompt phrasings and can be influenced by the way questions are worded. Ideally, LLMs should respond consistently regardless of phrasing, particularly when grounded in the same underlying evidence. We investigate this through a systematic evaluation in a controlled retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) setting for medical question answering (QA), where expert-selected documents are used rather than retrieved automatically. We examine two dimensions of patient query variation: question framing (positive vs. negative) and language style (technical vs. plain language). We construct a dataset of 6,614 query pairs grounded in clinical trial abstracts and evaluate response consistency across eight LLMs. Our findings show that positively- and negatively-framed pairs are significantly more likely to produce contradictory conclusions than same-framing pairs. This framing effect is further amplified in multi-turn conversations, where sustained persuasion increases inconsistency. We find no significant interaction between framing and language style. Our results demonstrate that LLM responses in medical QA can be systematically influenced through query phrasing alone, even when grounded in the same evidence, highlighting the importance of phrasing robustness as an evaluation criterion for RAG-based systems in high-stakes settings.

ReviewBench: An Extensible Framework for Benchmarking Human and AI Manuscript Review

The volume of scientific manuscripts is rising faster than the available pool of expert reviewers, and AI tools are emerging as a possible response, ranging from frontier large language models applied directly to peer review to purpose-built multi-agent systems. Scalable, standardized benchmarks are needed to regularly evaluate how these tools compare to one another and to human reviewers. We present ReviewBench, an open-source, venue-agnostic framework that compares human and AI reviews across structure, alignment with a paper’s major claims, impact, and critique category. We apply ReviewBench to 145,021 review comments from human reviewers, frontier large language models (GPT-5.2, and Gemini 3 Pro), and Reviewer3.com (R3), a multi-agent peer review system. The dataset spans papers in computer science (ICLR 2025, n = 1,000), social science (Nature Human Behaviour, n = 142), and life science (eLife, n = 1,000). Across disciplines, AI reviews are more structured and engage more directly with a paper’s major claims, with R3 more often surfacing consequential comments, defined as comments capable of undermining those claims. When restricting to critical comments, however, human reviewers rank first on consequential rate on more individual papers than any AI source, despite a lower average. We identify a bimodal reviewer distribution with peaks near 0% and 100%, indicating that many reviewers outperform AI on this metric, but a substantial fraction of reviewers near 0% brings the average down. Critique typing demonstrates systematic differences, where humans emphasize contribution and clarity, while AI emphasizes validity, sufficiency, and transparency. Together, these findings argue against framing AI as a replacement for human review and instead support a complementary model in which AI scales technical verification of major claims while human judgment remains essential for evaluating contribution and shaping editorial decisions.

Performance of a large language model on the reasoning tasks of a physician

More than 65 years ago, complex clinical diagnostic reasoning cases were introduced as the gold standard for the evaluation of expert medical computing systems, a standard that has held ever since. In this study, we report the results of a physician ...

Can AI Agents Synthesize Scientific Conclusions?

Scientific AI agents increasingly retrieve evidence, reason across sources, and synthesize conclusions used in consequential decisions. Yet, their ability to do so in high-stakes domains such as health remains unclear. We introduce SciConBench, a large-scale live benchmark of 9.11K questions and expert-written conclusions from systematic reviews to evaluate open-domain scientific conclusion synthesis. The benchmark draws on an expert-validated automated evaluation pipeline that decomposes conclusions into atomic facts and measures correctness and comprehensiveness via factual precision and recall. To mitigate data leakage, we further introduce SciConHarness, a clean-room evaluation harness that equips agents with controlled web interaction to ensure valid measurement. Evaluating 8 frontier models and deep research agents, we find that factual quality remains low: under clean-room settings, the best agent achieves only a factual F1 of 0.337. Our clean-room setting consistently reduces performance relative to unconstrained evaluation, suggesting that leakage inflates estimates of models' true synthesis capabilities. Finally, we audit consumer-facing agents (e.g., Google AI Overview, OpenEvidence) and find they frequently generate incomplete and sometimes contradictory conclusions, even when the ground-truth answer is available. Overall, our results show that reliable synthesis of scientific conclusions remains an open challenge, and that clean-room evaluation is essential for assessing open-domain AI agents.

InsightEval: An Expert-Curated Benchmark for Assessing Insight Discovery in LLM-Driven Data Agents

Data analysis has become an indispensable part of scientific research. To discover the latent knowledge and insights hidden within massive datasets, we need to perform deep exploratory analysis to realize their full value. With the advent of large language models (LLMs) and multi-agent systems, more and more researchers are making use of these technologies for insight discovery. However, there are few benchmarks for evaluating insight discovery capabilities. As one of the most comprehensive existing frameworks, InsightBench also suffers from many critical flaws: format inconsistencies, poorly conceived objectives, and redundant insights. These issues may significantly affect the quality of data and the evaluation of agents. To address these issues, we thoroughly investigate shortcomings in InsightBench and propose essential criteria for a high-quality insight benchmark. Regarding this, we develop a data-curation pipeline to construct a new dataset named InsightEval. We further introduce a novel metric to measure the exploratory performance of agents. Through extensive experiments on InsightEval, we highlight prevailing challenges in automated insight discovery and raise some key findings to guide future research in this promising direction.

Do Large Language Models Perform the Way People Expect? Measuring the Human Generalization Function

What makes large language models (LLMs) impressive is also what makes them hard to evaluate: their diversity of uses. To evaluate these models, we must understand the purposes they will be used for. We consider a setting where these deployment decisions are made by people, and in particular, people's beliefs about where an LLM will perform well. We model such beliefs as the consequence of a human generalization function: having seen what an LLM gets right or wrong, people generalize to where else it might succeed. We collect a dataset of 19K examples of how humans make generalizations across 79 tasks from the MMLU and BIG-Bench benchmarks. We show that the human generalization function can be predicted using NLP methods: people have consistent structured ways to generalize. We then evaluate LLM alignment with the human generalization function. Our results show that -- especially for cases where the cost of mistakes is high -- more capable models (e.g. GPT-4) can do worse on the instances people choose to use them for, exactly because they are not aligned with the human generalization function.

Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool

Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving. However, this rapid acceleration is creating a systemic challenge: traditional human peer review cannot scale to match the influx of AI-assisted science. Ultimately, to resolve this tension, we must also deploy AI to accelerate the verification and review process itself. To frame the discussion around this transition, we propose a taxonomy consisting of four progressive levels of AI-human collaboration in scientific evaluation, and discuss various trade-offs involved with each. As a step toward this future, we introduce the Paper Assistant Tool (PAT), an agentic AI framework built for deep scientific review and verification. PAT ingests full scientific manuscripts and produces a comprehensive evaluation, checking theoretical results, validating experiments, suggesting improvements, and identifying potential flaws. By utilizing inference scaling techniques, PAT is able to identify deeper issues than a single model call alone, achieving a 34% improvement over zero-shot recall on mathematical errors in the SPOT benchmark. Pilot deployments of PAT as a pre-submission tool for authors at two major Computer Science conferences -- STOC and ICML -- demonstrate its ability to identify critical errors and suggest substantive improvements to research papers. By catching errors early, PAT eases the cognitive burden placed on referees, while preserving their control over the outcomes of the review process.

ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities

Recent large language models (LLMs) advancements sparked a growing research interest in tool assisted LLMs solving real-world challenges…

Verification in the Age of AI Scientists

AI Scientists now operate at a scale that outpaces human capacity for manual review. Systems such as Sakana’s AI Scientist write entire workshop papers end-to-end. Lila Sciences runs autonomous ``AI Science Factories’’ that hypothesize, experiment, and iterate without human guidance. FutureHouse’s Kosmos and Robin generate thousands of candidate hypotheses in a single run, and Google’s Co-Scientist proposes testable experiments at a rate no laboratory can fully evaluate. Each of these systems emphasizes verified results, yet that standard ranges from near-perfect formal proof in mathematics to decade-long clinical trials in medicine, with no shared framework for judging sufficiency across domains. As outputs scale beyond what humans can manually inspect, the question of which results to trust becomes as hard as generating them. The bottleneck for AI for Science is no longer hypothesis generation, it is verification.

Towards Conversational Medical AI with Eyes, Ears and a Voice

The practice of medicine relies not only upon skillful dialogue but also on the nuanced exchange and interpretation of rich auditory and visual cues between doctors and patients. Building on the low-latency voice and video processing capabilities of Gemini, we introduce AI co-clinician, a first-of-its-kind conversational AI system utilizing continuous streams of audio-visual data from live patient conversations to inform real-time clinical decisions. Its dual-agent architecture balances deep clinical reasoning with the low latency required for natural dialogue. To assess this system, we implemented a video-based interface emulating telemedicine consultations. We crafted 20 standardized outpatient scenarios requiring proactive real-time auditory and visual reasoning and designed "TelePACES" evaluation criteria alongside case-specific rubrics. In a randomized, interface-blinded, crossover simulation study (n = 120 encounters) with 10 internal medicine residents as patient actors, we compared AI co-clinician with primary care physicians (PCPs), GPT-Realtime, and a baseline agent. AI co-clinician approached PCPs in key TelePACES dimensions, including management plans and differential diagnosis, while significantly outperforming GPT-Realtime across all general criteria. While our agent demonstrated parity with PCPs in case-specific triage measures, physicians maintained superior overall performance in case-specific assessments. Although AI co-clinician marks a significant advance in real-time telemedical AI, gaps remain in physical examination and disease-specific reasoning. Our work shows that text-only approaches fail to capture the true challenges of medical consultation and suggests that high-stakes real-time diagnostic AI is most safely advanced in collaborative, triadic models where AI can be a supportive co-clinician for doctors and patients.

Benchmarking DeepSeek R1 Models using Lumigator: A Practical Evaluation for Zero-Shot Clinical Summarization

New state-of-the-art models emerge every few weeks, making it hard to keep up, especially when testing and integrating them. In reality, many available models may already meet our needs. The key question isn’t “Which model is the best?” but rather, “What’s the smallest model that gets the job done?”

Measuring short-form factuality in large language models

We present SimpleQA, a benchmark that evaluates the ability of language models to answer short, fact-seeking questions. We prioritized two properties in designing this eval. First, SimpleQA is challenging, as it is adversarially collected against GPT-4 responses. Second, responses are easy to grade, because questions are created such that there exists only a single, indisputable answer. Each answer in SimpleQA is graded as either correct, incorrect, or not attempted. A model with ideal behavior would get as many questions correct as possible while not attempting the questions for which it is not confident it knows the correct answer. SimpleQA is a simple, targeted evaluation for whether models "know what they know," and our hope is that this benchmark will remain relevant for the next few generations of frontier models. SimpleQA can be found at https://github.com/openai/simple-evals.