{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"simpleqa","slug":"simpleqa","name":"SimpleQA","type":"benchmark","url":"https://openai.com/index/introducing-simpleqa","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/simpleqa","categories":["testing-quality"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"free","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"simpleqa__cap_0","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.factuality.benchmark.evaluation.with.unambiguous.answers","name":"factuality-benchmark-evaluation-with-unambiguous-answers","description":"Evaluates language model factuality by presenting short, fact-seeking questions with objectively verifiable answers that admit no reasonable interpretation variance. The benchmark uses a curated dataset of questions where correctness can be deterministically assessed without subjective judgment, enabling precise measurement of hallucination rates versus accurate factual retrieval across model families and scales.","intents":["measure how often my LLM generates correct factual information versus plausible-sounding hallucinations","compare factuality performance across different model architectures and sizes","identify systematic failure modes in factual reasoning before production deployment","establish baseline factuality metrics for model selection and fine-tuning decisions"],"best_for":["AI researchers evaluating model factuality across benchmarks","teams selecting between LLM providers based on hallucination rates","organizations building fact-critical applications (search, QA, knowledge systems)","model developers optimizing for factual accuracy in pre-training or RLHF"],"limitations":["limited to short-form factual questions; does not measure reasoning depth or multi-hop inference","unambiguous answers exclude nuanced topics where multiple valid interpretations exist","benchmark size and composition may not represent distribution of real-world queries","does not measure confidence calibration or uncertainty quantification in model outputs","static dataset may become saturated as models improve or are trained on benchmark data"],"requires":["language model with text generation capability (any API or local model)","ability to parse and evaluate model outputs against ground truth answers","computational resources for batch evaluation across model variants"],"input_types":["text (natural language questions)"],"output_types":["structured data (accuracy metrics, per-question correctness labels, hallucination rates)","text (model-generated answers for evaluation)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"simpleqa__cap_1","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.hallucination.rate.quantification.across.model.scales","name":"hallucination-rate-quantification-across-model-scales","description":"Provides a standardized measurement methodology for quantifying the frequency and severity of factual hallucinations across different model sizes, architectures, and training approaches. The benchmark enables comparative analysis of how hallucination rates scale with model capacity, training data, and fine-tuning techniques, using consistent evaluation criteria across all tested variants.","intents":["determine if larger models genuinely have lower hallucination rates or if scaling introduces new failure modes","measure the impact of fine-tuning, RLHF, or instruction-tuning on factual accuracy","establish quantitative thresholds for acceptable hallucination rates in production systems","track hallucination improvements across model versions and training iterations"],"best_for":["model developers optimizing training pipelines for factuality","organizations comparing LLM providers on hallucination metrics","researchers studying scaling laws and their relationship to factual accuracy","teams building fact-critical applications requiring quantified safety guarantees"],"limitations":["hallucination rate on benchmark may not correlate with real-world hallucination frequency in production queries","does not distinguish between different types of hallucinations (fabricated facts vs. outdated information vs. reasoning errors)","benchmark-specific metrics may not transfer to domain-specific factuality requirements","does not measure partial correctness or degree of factual error"],"requires":["ability to run model inference on benchmark questions","ground truth answer dataset with verified factual correctness","evaluation harness to compare model outputs against ground truth"],"input_types":["text (factual questions)","structured data (ground truth answers)"],"output_types":["structured data (hallucination rates, accuracy percentages, per-model comparison tables)","metrics (precision, recall, F1 for factual correctness)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"simpleqa__cap_2","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.factual.correctness.ground.truth.validation","name":"factual-correctness-ground-truth-validation","description":"Provides a curated dataset of factual questions paired with verified ground truth answers, enabling deterministic evaluation of model outputs against objectively correct responses. The validation approach uses human curation and fact-checking to ensure ground truth accuracy, supporting automated scoring of model responses without subjective interpretation.","intents":["automatically score model responses as correct or incorrect without manual review","build evaluation pipelines that can run continuously across model versions","establish reproducible factuality metrics that other researchers can verify","create training data for fine-tuning models toward higher factual accuracy"],"best_for":["researchers building automated evaluation systems for factuality","teams implementing continuous evaluation pipelines for LLM monitoring","organizations creating fact-checking training datasets","developers building QA systems that require factual grounding"],"limitations":["ground truth curation is labor-intensive and may contain human errors despite fact-checking","dataset size is finite and may not cover emerging topics or recent events","answer format variations (synonyms, paraphrases) require fuzzy matching or semantic comparison","does not capture partial correctness or answers that are mostly accurate with minor errors"],"requires":["access to SimpleQA dataset with ground truth answers","evaluation harness that can parse and compare model outputs to ground truth","optional: semantic similarity model for fuzzy answer matching"],"input_types":["text (model-generated answers)","structured data (ground truth answers)"],"output_types":["structured data (correctness labels, match scores)","metrics (accuracy, precision, recall)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"simpleqa__cap_3","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.model.factuality.comparison.framework","name":"model-factuality-comparison-framework","description":"Provides a standardized evaluation framework for comparing factuality performance across different language models, enabling side-by-side analysis of accuracy metrics, hallucination rates, and failure patterns. The framework supports batch evaluation of multiple models against the same question set, producing comparative metrics that highlight relative strengths and weaknesses in factual reasoning.","intents":["compare factuality of GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Claude, Gemini, and other models on identical questions","identify which model architectures or training approaches produce fewer hallucinations","benchmark open-source models against proprietary models on factuality","make data-driven decisions about which model to use for fact-critical applications"],"best_for":["organizations evaluating LLM providers for production deployment","researchers comparing model architectures and training methods","teams building model selection frameworks","AI practitioners choosing between open-source and proprietary models"],"limitations":["comparison is only as valid as the benchmark questions; domain-specific factuality may differ","does not account for model-specific prompt engineering or few-shot optimization","inference cost and latency differences between models are not captured","does not measure factuality on adversarial or out-of-distribution questions"],"requires":["API access or local deployment of models being compared","SimpleQA benchmark dataset","evaluation harness supporting multiple model APIs or inference engines"],"input_types":["text (benchmark questions)","structured data (model configurations, API credentials)"],"output_types":["structured data (comparative accuracy tables, per-model metrics)","visualizations (accuracy comparisons, hallucination rate charts)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"simpleqa__cap_4","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.short.form.factual.question.dataset.curation","name":"short-form-factual-question-dataset-curation","description":"Provides a curated dataset of short, focused factual questions designed to isolate factuality measurement from reasoning complexity, comprehension difficulty, or multi-hop inference. The curation process selects questions where a single, unambiguous factual answer exists, enabling clean measurement of whether models can retrieve or generate correct facts without confounding variables.","intents":["create a clean benchmark that measures factuality without conflating it with reasoning ability","build training data for fine-tuning models on factual accuracy","establish baseline factuality metrics before adding reasoning or multi-hop complexity","identify which factual domains or question types cause the most hallucinations"],"best_for":["researchers studying factuality as an isolated capability","teams building fact-checking or QA systems","organizations creating fine-tuning datasets for factuality improvement","developers building evaluation suites for production LLMs"],"limitations":["short-form questions may not reflect complexity of real-world factual queries","curation process is subjective in determining what constitutes 'unambiguous'","dataset may have coverage gaps in certain domains or question types","does not measure factuality in longer-form generation or multi-paragraph contexts"],"requires":["access to SimpleQA dataset","optional: domain expertise to understand question coverage and gaps"],"input_types":["structured data (question-answer pairs)"],"output_types":["text (factual questions)","structured data (questions with metadata, answer types, difficulty levels)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"simpleqa__cap_5","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.hallucination.failure.mode.analysis","name":"hallucination-failure-mode-analysis","description":"Enables systematic analysis of hallucination patterns and failure modes by categorizing incorrect model responses, identifying which types of facts models most frequently hallucinate, and revealing systematic biases in factual generation. The analysis approach examines error patterns across question categories, model sizes, and architectures to understand root causes of hallucinations.","intents":["identify which factual domains or question types cause the most hallucinations","understand whether hallucinations are random or systematic (e.g., bias toward plausible-sounding wrong answers)","determine if larger models hallucinate differently than smaller models","guide fine-tuning or training improvements by targeting specific hallucination patterns"],"best_for":["model developers optimizing training for factuality","researchers studying hallucination mechanisms","teams building fact-critical systems that need to understand failure modes","organizations implementing guardrails against specific hallucination types"],"limitations":["requires manual analysis or sophisticated error categorization to extract patterns","hallucination patterns may be specific to benchmark questions and not generalize","does not explain WHY models hallucinate (requires interpretability analysis)","error analysis is labor-intensive and may miss subtle patterns"],"requires":["model evaluation results with incorrect answers","ground truth answers for comparison","optional: error categorization framework or taxonomy"],"input_types":["structured data (model outputs, ground truth answers, evaluation results)"],"output_types":["structured data (error categories, failure mode distributions)","text (analysis reports, pattern descriptions)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"simpleqa__headline","uri":"capability://testing.quality.factuality.benchmark.for.evaluating.language.model.accuracy","name":"factuality benchmark for evaluating language model accuracy","description":"SimpleQA is a benchmark designed to assess the factual accuracy of language models by presenting short, fact-seeking questions with clear answers, helping developers understand how often models provide correct information versus hallucinating responses.","intents":["best factuality benchmark","factuality testing for language models","how to evaluate model accuracy","tools for assessing AI factuality","best practices for language model evaluation"],"best_for":["developers assessing AI models","researchers in NLP"],"limitations":[],"requires":[],"input_types":[],"output_types":[],"categories":["testing-quality"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":61,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["language model with text generation capability (any API or local model)","ability to parse and evaluate model outputs against ground truth answers","computational resources for batch evaluation across model variants","ability to run model inference on benchmark questions","ground truth answer dataset with verified factual correctness","evaluation harness to compare model outputs against ground truth","access to SimpleQA dataset with ground truth answers","evaluation harness that can parse and compare model outputs to ground truth","optional: semantic similarity model for fuzzy answer matching","API access or local deployment of models being compared"],"failure_modes":["limited to short-form factual questions; does not measure reasoning depth or multi-hop inference","unambiguous answers exclude nuanced topics where multiple valid interpretations exist","benchmark size and composition may not represent distribution of real-world queries","does not measure confidence calibration or uncertainty quantification in model outputs","static dataset may become saturated as models improve or are trained on benchmark data","hallucination rate on benchmark may not correlate with real-world hallucination frequency in production queries","does not distinguish between different types of hallucinations (fabricated facts vs. outdated information vs. reasoning errors)","benchmark-specific metrics may not transfer to domain-specific factuality requirements","does not measure partial correctness or degree of factual error","ground truth curation is labor-intensive and may contain human errors despite fact-checking","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.7,"quality":0.8500000000000001,"ecosystem":0.3,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.35,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.2,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:25.061Z","last_scraped_at":null,"last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=simpleqa","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=simpleqa"}},"signature":"tGucSJSThGEUG08bqOOluNnnMpgilMSYCFwwun7eSD8JvIcYru6mdVRIlOlDl9LQjygW3S0Th6mXAn962BwMBQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T01:34:25.784Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/simpleqa","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/simpleqa","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=simpleqa","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}