Mistral Large ranks higher at 77/100 vs ARC (AI2 Reasoning Challenge) at 60/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | ARC (AI2 Reasoning Challenge) | Mistral Large |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Dataset | Model |
| UnfragileRank | 60/100 | 77/100 |
| Adoption | 1 | 1 |
| Quality | 1 |
| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Provides a curated dataset of 7,787 multiple-choice science questions spanning physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science at grade-school difficulty levels. Questions are structured with a stem, four answer choices, and a correct answer label. The dataset enables systematic evaluation of LLM reasoning capabilities by measuring accuracy on questions that require applying scientific knowledge to novel scenarios rather than surface-level fact retrieval or word co-occurrence matching.
Unique: Explicitly designed to filter out questions answerable by retrieval or word co-occurrence — the Challenge subset (2,590 questions) was curated by removing questions that simple baseline methods could solve, ensuring the remaining questions require genuine multi-step reasoning and knowledge application rather than surface-level pattern matching
vs alternatives: More rigorous than generic QA benchmarks because it explicitly excludes questions solvable by shallow methods, making it a stricter test of reasoning; smaller and more focused than MMLU but with deeper curation for reasoning-specific evaluation
Stratifies 7,787 questions across four distinct science domains (physics, chemistry, biology, earth science) with balanced representation in both Easy and Challenge subsets. This domain-level organization enables fine-grained analysis of where models succeed or fail within specific scientific disciplines. The dataset structure supports computing per-domain accuracy metrics, identifying domain-specific knowledge gaps, and detecting whether models exhibit uneven reasoning capabilities across scientific fields.
Unique: Provides explicit domain labels (physics, chemistry, biology, earth science) for all 7,787 questions, enabling direct per-domain accuracy computation without requiring external domain classification. The Challenge subset maintains domain balance, ensuring that reasoning difficulty is not confounded with domain-specific knowledge gaps.
vs alternatives: More granular than generic science benchmarks that lump all science questions together; enables domain-specific debugging that single-domain benchmarks (e.g., physics-only) cannot provide
Partitions the dataset into two difficulty tiers: Easy (5,197 questions, solvable by retrieval and word co-occurrence baselines) and Challenge (2,590 questions, resistant to shallow methods). The Challenge subset was explicitly curated by filtering out questions that simple baseline methods could answer correctly, ensuring that remaining questions require multi-step reasoning, knowledge synthesis, or novel application of scientific principles. This two-tier structure enables evaluation of both baseline reasoning capability and advanced reasoning performance.
Unique: Challenge subset was explicitly curated by removing questions answerable by retrieval-based and word co-occurrence baseline methods, rather than using heuristic difficulty metrics. This ensures that Challenge questions genuinely require reasoning beyond surface-level pattern matching, making it a more rigorous test of reasoning capability than difficulty-sorted datasets.
vs alternatives: More principled than arbitrary difficulty splits because curation is based on empirical baseline performance; more focused on reasoning than datasets that use question length or vocabulary complexity as difficulty proxies
Provides a structured multiple-choice format (question stem + four answer choices + correct answer label) that enables direct integration with standard LLM evaluation pipelines. Each question is formatted consistently with a unique identifier, allowing reproducible evaluation across different models and runs. The format supports both direct accuracy computation (comparing predicted choice to ground truth) and probabilistic evaluation (ranking answer choices by model confidence scores). This standardization enables fair comparison across heterogeneous models and evaluation frameworks.
Unique: Provides a clean, standardized multiple-choice format with unique question identifiers and consistent answer choice ordering, enabling direct integration with evaluation frameworks like lm-eval, vLLM's evaluation suite, and Hugging Face's evaluation harness without custom parsing or normalization
vs alternatives: More standardized than ad-hoc science QA datasets because it enforces consistent formatting; more reproducible than datasets with variable question structures or answer choice counts
Includes published baseline results from retrieval-based systems, word co-occurrence methods, and various LLM families (GPT-3, BERT, RoBERTa, etc.), enabling direct performance comparison and leaderboard positioning. The dataset documentation provides accuracy metrics for standard baselines, allowing new models to be evaluated against established reference points. This anchoring enables researchers to contextualize their model's performance and identify whether improvements represent genuine advances or marginal gains.
Unique: Includes explicit baseline results from retrieval-based and word co-occurrence methods that were used to curate the Challenge set, enabling direct comparison of how LLMs perform relative to the shallow methods that motivated the dataset's design. This provides built-in context for interpreting whether a model's performance represents genuine reasoning capability.
vs alternatives: More contextualized than raw benchmarks because it includes published baselines; more useful for leaderboarding than datasets without reference implementations
Enables systematic comparison of reasoning capabilities across different model architectures, sizes, and training approaches by providing a standardized evaluation surface. The dataset's reasoning-focused curation (Challenge set) and domain stratification allow researchers to isolate which models excel at reasoning vs. retrieval, which domains each model struggles with, and how reasoning capability scales with model size. This supports meta-analysis of how architectural choices, training data, and fine-tuning affect reasoning performance.
Unique: Provides a reasoning-specific evaluation surface (Challenge set curated to exclude shallow-method-solvable questions) that isolates reasoning capability from retrieval capability, enabling cleaner comparison of how different models approach reasoning tasks. Domain stratification further enables analysis of whether reasoning capability is uniform or domain-specific.
vs alternatives: More suitable for reasoning-focused comparison than generic QA benchmarks because Challenge set explicitly filters out retrieval-solvable questions; more fine-grained than single-metric leaderboards because it supports domain and difficulty stratification
Provides a curated evaluation dataset for educational AI systems (tutoring bots, homework helpers, exam prep tools) to assess whether they can correctly answer grade-school science questions across multiple domains. The dataset's focus on applying knowledge to novel situations (rather than fact recall) aligns with educational learning objectives. Integration with educational platforms enables tracking student performance, identifying knowledge gaps, and validating that tutoring systems provide accurate guidance.
Unique: Designed specifically for grade-school science education with questions that test application of knowledge to novel situations (rather than fact recall), aligning with constructivist learning objectives. The Challenge subset ensures that tutoring systems must demonstrate genuine reasoning rather than surface-level pattern matching, which is critical for educational credibility.
vs alternatives: More appropriate for educational AI evaluation than generic QA benchmarks because it focuses on knowledge application rather than fact retrieval; more rigorous than simple fact-checking because Challenge set requires reasoning
Enables evaluation of whether fine-tuning on science-specific data improves model performance on reasoning tasks. The dataset's domain stratification (physics, chemistry, biology, earth science) and difficulty split (Easy/Challenge) allow researchers to measure whether fine-tuning improves performance uniformly across domains or creates domain-specific improvements. This supports iterative model optimization, ablation studies, and validation that fine-tuning generalizes to unseen science questions.
Unique: Provides fine-grained stratification (domain + difficulty) that enables detection of whether fine-tuning improves reasoning uniformly or creates domain-specific or difficulty-specific improvements. This level of granularity supports targeted optimization and prevents masking of negative transfer or domain-specific degradation.
vs alternatives: More useful for fine-tuning validation than single-metric benchmarks because it supports domain and difficulty stratification; more rigorous than custom evaluation sets because it uses a standardized, published benchmark
Mistral Large processes up to 128,000 tokens in a single context window, enabling analysis of entire codebases, long documents, or multi-turn conversations without context truncation. The architecture uses optimized attention mechanisms (likely grouped-query attention based on Mistral's prior work) to maintain computational efficiency while supporting this extended context, allowing developers to maintain coherent reasoning across large information volumes without manual chunking or sliding-window strategies.
Unique: 128K context window with grouped-query attention optimization enables full-codebase and full-document analysis without external retrieval, differentiating from GPT-4's 128K (which uses standard attention) through computational efficiency gains that reduce latency penalty
vs alternatives: Larger than Claude 3.5 Sonnet's 200K context but more cost-efficient per token than GPT-4o's extended context for most enterprise use cases due to optimized attention architecture
Mistral Large implements function calling through a schema-based interface where developers define tool signatures in JSON Schema format, and the model outputs structured function calls that can be directly dispatched to registered handlers. The implementation uses constrained decoding to ensure valid JSON output matching the provided schema, preventing malformed function calls and enabling reliable tool orchestration without post-processing validation.
Unique: Uses constrained decoding with JSON Schema validation to guarantee valid function calls without post-processing, whereas competitors like GPT-4 rely on post-hoc validation of model output, reducing error rates and enabling direct dispatch
vs alternatives: More reliable than Claude's tool_use format for complex multi-step workflows because constrained decoding prevents malformed calls, and simpler to integrate than OpenAI's function calling which requires additional validation layers
Mistral Large scores higher at 77/100 vs ARC (AI2 Reasoning Challenge) at 60/100. ARC (AI2 Reasoning Challenge) leads on ecosystem, while Mistral Large is stronger on quality.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Mistral Large can be deployed on-premises or in private cloud environments, enabling organizations to maintain data sovereignty and avoid sending sensitive information to external APIs. Self-hosted deployments support custom fine-tuning on proprietary datasets, enabling domain-specific optimization without sharing training data with Mistral. Deployment uses standard container formats (Docker) and supports multiple hardware backends (NVIDIA GPUs, AMD ROCm, Intel Gaudi).
Unique: Supports full self-hosted deployment with custom fine-tuning on proprietary data, enabling organizations to maintain complete control over model behavior and data, whereas most competitors restrict fine-tuning to managed services
vs alternatives: More flexible than OpenAI's fine-tuning (which is API-only) and more cost-effective than Claude for high-volume on-premises deployments due to lower licensing costs
Mistral Large achieves performance competitive with GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet on major reasoning benchmarks including MMLU (84.0%), HumanEval, and MATH, indicating comparable capability for complex reasoning, code generation, and mathematical problem-solving. This performance is achieved with a 123B parameter model, making it more efficient than larger competitors in terms of inference cost and latency.
Unique: Achieves GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet-level performance on major benchmarks with a 123B parameter model, enabling competitive reasoning capability at lower inference cost due to smaller model size and optimized architecture
vs alternatives: More cost-efficient than GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet for equivalent reasoning performance, making it ideal for cost-sensitive applications where benchmark-level performance is sufficient
Mistral Large exposes temperature and top-p (nucleus sampling) parameters to control the randomness and diversity of generated outputs. Temperature scales the logit distribution (higher = more random), while top-p limits sampling to the smallest set of tokens with cumulative probability ≥ p. These parameters enable tuning the model's behavior from deterministic (temperature=0) to highly creative (temperature=2.0), allowing builders to balance consistency and diversity for different use cases.
Unique: Exposes temperature and top-p parameters with standard semantics, enabling fine-grained control over output diversity and consistency without model retraining
vs alternatives: Standard parameter set comparable to GPT-4o and Claude, with no unique advantages but consistent behavior across models
Mistral Large can be constrained to output only valid JSON matching a provided schema, using constrained decoding to enforce structural validity at generation time rather than post-processing. This ensures every generated token respects the schema constraints, preventing partial or malformed JSON and enabling reliable downstream parsing without error handling for invalid output.
Unique: Enforces schema compliance at token generation time using constrained decoding, guaranteeing valid JSON output without post-processing, whereas most competitors (including GPT-4) generate JSON then validate, allowing invalid output to be produced
vs alternatives: More efficient than Claude's JSON mode because validation happens during generation rather than after, eliminating retry loops for invalid output and reducing latency for structured extraction tasks
Mistral Large is trained on multilingual data and maintains reasoning capability across 10+ languages including English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic. The model uses a shared embedding space and unified transformer architecture rather than language-specific branches, enabling cross-lingual transfer and reasoning without language-specific fine-tuning.
Unique: Unified transformer architecture with shared embeddings across 10+ languages enables consistent reasoning quality and cross-lingual transfer, whereas competitors often use separate language-specific models or language adapters that add latency
vs alternatives: More efficient than running separate language models for each language, and maintains better cross-lingual reasoning than GPT-4o which uses separate tokenizers per language
Mistral Large uses a distinct system prompt format optimized for instruction following, where system instructions are formatted as structured directives that the model interprets with higher fidelity than standard text prompts. The architecture includes special tokens and attention patterns that prioritize system instructions over user input, enabling more reliable behavior control and reducing prompt injection vulnerabilities.
Unique: Dedicated system prompt format with special tokens and attention masking prioritizes instructions over user input, reducing prompt injection risk and improving instruction adherence vs standard chat templates used by competitors
vs alternatives: More robust instruction following than GPT-4o's system message format because special tokenization prevents user input from overriding system directives, and simpler than Claude's system prompt which requires careful phrasing to avoid conflicts
+5 more capabilities