# Are Large Language Models Truly Smarter Than Humans?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.16197 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16197/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.00027/) (2020)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.11817/) (2024)
- [Investigating Data Contamination in Modern Benchmarks for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09783/) (2023)
- [Generalization or Memorization: Data Contamination and Trustworthy Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.15938/) (2024)
- [MMLU-CF: A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15194/) (2024)
- [Evaluation data contamination in LLMs: how do we measure it and (when) does it matter?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.03923/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.