MHPP
Models write Python functions for 210 human-curated problems that need careful reading of specifications and multi-step reasoning. Unit tests check each solution.
Built to be harder than HumanEval and MBPP. The paper evaluated 26 models.
In the authors’ words
Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have greatly improved code generation, specifically at the function level. For instance, GPT-4o has achieved a 91.0% pass rate on HumanEval. However, this draws into question the adequacy of existing benchmarks in thoroughly assessing function-level code generation capabilities. Our study analyzed two common benchmarks, HumanEval and MBPP, and found that these might not thoroughly evaluate LLMs' code generation capacities due to limitations in quality, difficulty, and granularity. To resolve this, we introduce the Mostly Hard Python Problems (MHPP) dataset, consisting of 210 unique human-curated problems. By focusing on the combination of natural language and code reasoning, MHPP gauges LLMs' abilities to comprehend specifications and restrictions, engage in multi-step reasoning, and apply coding knowledge effectively. Initial evaluations of 26 LLMs using MHPP showed many high-performing models on HumanEval failed to achieve similar success on MHPP. Moreover, MHPP highlighted various previously undiscovered limitations within various LLMs, leading us to believe that it could pave the way for a better understanding of LLMs' capabilities and limitations. MHPP, evaluation pipeline, and leaderboard can be found in https://github.com/SparksofAGI/MHPP.
- Level
- University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Code A program or patch run against tests.
o1-preview leads with 68.1% among models released by Oct 2024
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
The newest model with a score here came out in Oct 2024, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 68.1 o1-preview
- 66.2 o1-mini
- 51.4 GPT-4o
- 48.1 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024)
- 45.2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- 43.8 GPT-4 Turbo
- 42.4 GPT-4o mini
- 41.4
Mistral Large 2
- 40.0
DeepSeek-V2.5
- 39.5
Llama 3.1-405B
- 33.8
Llama 3.1-70B
- 32.9 DeepSeek-33B
- 28.6
Gemma 2 27B
- 28.1 GPT-3.5 Turbo
- 25.2 Codestral 22B
- 24.8 Claude 3 Haiku
- 21.9
Mixtral 8x22B
- 21.0 DeepSeek-6.7B
- 21.0
phi-3-medium 14B
- 20.0 Codestral Mamba 7B
- 19.5
phi-3-mini 3.8B
- 19.5
phi-3-small 7.4B
- 18.1
Gemma 2 9B
- 17.1
Llama 3.1-8B
- 15.7 CodeGemma 7B 1.1
- 11.4 DeepSeek-1.3B
- 11.0
Mixtral 8x7B
- 9.50
Gemma 2 2B IT
- 9.00
Mistral 7B v0.3
- 1 o1-preview 68.1%
- 2 o1-mini 66.2%
- 3 GPT-4o May 2024 51.4%
- 4 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) 48.1%
- 5 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 45.2%
- 6 GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 43.8%
- 7 GPT-4o mini 42.4%
- 8
Mistral Large 2 Jul 2024 41.4%
- 9
DeepSeek-V2.5 Sep 2024 40%
- 10
Llama 3.1-405B 39.5%
- 11
Llama 3.1-70B 33.8%
- 12 DeepSeek-33B 32.9%
- 13
Gemma 2 27B 28.6%
- 14 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jan 2024 28.1%
- 15 Codestral 22B 25.2%
- 16 Claude 3 Haiku 24.8%
- 17
Mixtral 8x22B 21.9%
- 18 DeepSeek-6.7B 21%
- 19
phi-3-medium 14B 21%
- 20 Codestral Mamba 7B 20%
- 21
phi-3-mini 3.8B 19.5%
- 22
phi-3-small 7.4B 19.5%
- 23
Gemma 2 9B 18.1%
- 24
Llama 3.1-8B 17.1%
- 25 CodeGemma 7B 1.1 15.7%
- 26 DeepSeek-1.3B 11.4%
- 27
Mixtral 8x7B 11%
- 28
Gemma 2 2B IT 9.50%
- 29
Mistral 7B v0.3 9.00%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | o1-preview | 68.1% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | o1-mini | 66.2% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | GPT-4o May 2024 | 51.4% | May 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) | 48.1% | Oct 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | 45.2% | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 | 43.8% | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | GPT-4o mini | 42.4% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 41.4% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 40% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 39.5% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 33.8% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | DeepSeek-33B | 32.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 13 | | 28.6% | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | GPT-3.5 Turbo Jan 2024 | 28.1% | Jan 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | Codestral 22B | 25.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 16 | Claude 3 Haiku | 24.8% | Mar 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 21.9% | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | DeepSeek-6.7B | 21% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | | 21% | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | Codestral Mamba 7B | 20% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | | 19.5% | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | | 19.5% | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | | 18.1% | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 17.1% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | CodeGemma 7B 1.1 | 15.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 26 | DeepSeek-1.3B | 11.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 27 | | 11% | Dec 2023 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | | 9.50% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | | 9.00% | Sep 2023 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.
3 models have held number one since its release in May 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
No launch post has listed it since May 2025
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 May 2025 | 36.2 | MHPP |
One system card reports it
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 Jun 2025 | | 36.2 | MHPP pass@1 (Table 7) | Capabilities |
More in Coding
- SWE-bench Verified In use 500 human-validated GitHub issues from 12 Python repos. Agent writes a patch that must pass hidden tests. Claude Opus 4.7 83.5%
- SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Opus 5.5 93.9%
- LiveCodeBench v6 In use Competitive programming problems collected after model cutoffs from LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces. Scored pass@1 on hidden tests.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 93.5%
- DeepSWE In use 113 original long-horizon engineering tasks across 91 repos and five languages, written from scratch. Hand-written verifiers accept alternative solutions. GPT-6 Astra 74.1%
- SciCode In use Scientist-curated research coding problems split into subproblems across natural sciences. Code checked against test cases.
Seed2.1 Pro 59.8%
- Codeforces rating In use Model solves recent Codeforces contest problems. An Elo-style rating is computed from simulated contest performance.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 3,471