Fact check: Is it true that the model from “Caesar / caesar_data” got 55.87% in Humanity’s Last Exam?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, none of the sources examined contain any information about a model from "Caesar / caesar_data" achieving 55.87% on Humanity's Last Exam ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. The sources consistently report that they do not mention this specific model or its claimed performance score.

However, the analyses do reveal that other AI models have been tested on Humanity's Last Exam, with documented results showing significantly lower performance. Specifically, OpenAI's Deep Research model completed only 26.6% of the test ^[3], which is substantially lower than the 55.87% claimed for the Caesar model.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about what Humanity's Last Exam actually is and who developed it. The analyses indicate that this benchmark was developed by Scale AI and CAIS (Center for AI Safety) ^{[2] [4]}, representing a collaboration between a commercial AI company and a safety research organization.

The missing context includes:

• The purpose and methodology of Humanity's Last Exam as a benchmark
• Which models have actually been tested and their verified performance scores
• The official leaderboard or results publication that would contain legitimate model performances
• Whether "Caesar / caesar_data" is even a recognized AI model in the research community

Scale AI would benefit from promoting this benchmark as it establishes their company as a leader in AI evaluation, while CAIS benefits by positioning itself as a key player in AI safety assessment ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement appears to contain unverified or potentially fabricated information. The complete absence of any mention of the "Caesar / caesar_data" model across multiple sources covering Humanity's Last Exam results ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} strongly suggests that:

• The claimed 55.87% score may be entirely fictitious
• The "Caesar / caesar_data" model may not exist or may not have been tested on this benchmark
• The statement could be an attempt to spread misinformation about AI capabilities

Given that legitimate models like OpenAI's Deep Research achieved only 26.6% ^[3], a claim of 55.87% would represent a dramatic improvement that would likely be widely reported if true. The absence of any corroborating evidence across multiple relevant sources indicates this claim should be treated with extreme skepticism.