reasoning benchmark
Enhanced version of HumanEval that extends the original test cases by 80x using EvalPlus framework for rigorous evaluation of LLM-synthesized code functional correctness, detecting previously undetected wrong code
Updated Aug 7, 2026
Sorted by the source-provided rank. Higher score is better according to the registry.
| 6 | MI | 92.9% | 93.3% | 76 | C | |
| 9 | MI | 92.3% | 89.3% | 76 | C | |
| 34 | IB | 86.1% | 56.0% | 76 | C | |
| 35 | IB | 86.1% | 54.7% | 76 | C | |
| 45 | MI | 82.8% | 41.3% | 76 | C | |
| 53 | IB | 78.3% | 30.7% | 76 | C | |
| 55 | XI | 75.6% | 28.0% | 76 | C | |
| 70 | AC | 52.4% | 8.0% | 76 | C | |
| 72 | AC | 51.2% | 5.3% | 76 | C | |
| 76 | BA | 25.0% | 0.0% | 76 | C |
Top published rows on the benchmark's original scale.
The top published results on this benchmark's own scale.
Definition and scoring fields from the benchmark registry.
Enhanced version of HumanEval that extends the original test cases by 80x using EvalPlus framework for rigorous evaluation of LLM-synthesized code functional correctness, detecting previously undetected wrong code
Scores are shown in ratio. The current registry marks this benchmark as not independently verified with evidence level B.
Source-native results are preserved. Eligibility for the overall LLMBoard score is a separate policy decision.
Common questions about HumanEval+.
Phi 4 Reasoning is currently ranked first with 92.9%.
Enhanced version of HumanEval that extends the original test cases by 80x using EvalPlus framework for rigorous evaluation of LLM-synthesized code functional correctness, detecting previously undetected wrong code
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
10 unique published model results are currently shown.
This benchmark is marked as eligible for the current LLMBoard capability methodology.