Understanding AI Benchmarks
- Martin Swartz
- Apr 11
- 17 min read
Updated: Apr 16
Explore the key benchmarks used to evaluate AI models, including LLMs and image generators, focusing on accuracy, speed, reasoning, and more.
A U365 5MTS 5 MINUTES TO SUCCESS Microlearning Lecture |
Introduction
We are witnessing the emergence of new large language models (LLMs) and image generation technologies almost weekly, as there is an incredible competition among industries and even global nations.
For professionals and enthusiasts alike, understanding how these models are evaluated becomes crucial. Benchmarks serve as standardized tests to assess various capabilities of AI models, such as accuracy, speed, reasoning, context handling, memory, and image generation.There are even benchmarks to assess the performance of AI for specific professional sectors such as medicine, biology, finance, etc.
This lecture aims to demystify these benchmarks, tracing their origins, evolution, and application across different AI models.
1. Accuracy and Reasoning Benchmarks
Before any AI model can be trusted for use in real-world applications, its cognitive and reasoning skills must be evaluated. This chapter explores benchmarks that test how well AI understands and reasons across diverse subjects, key indicators of a model’s intellectual capability.
MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding): Evaluates models on a diverse set of academic subjects to assess their general knowledge and reasoning abilities.
MMMU (Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding): A newer benchmark that expands the evaluation beyond language, testing AI's ability to reason across text, images, diagrams, and tables in various academic domains such as physics, biology, and history.
BIG-bench: A collaborative benchmark designed to test a wide range of tasks, including language understanding, reasoning, and problem-solving.
TruthfulQA: Assesses the model's ability to provide truthful answers, minimizing misinformation.
Examples: OpenAI's GPT-4 has demonstrated high performance on MMLU, indicating strong general knowledge and reasoning capabilities. The newer GPT-4o (released in April 2025) builds on this with significant real-time multimodal capabilities, offering enhanced performance in tasks involving vision, audio, and text. GPT-0.1, OpenAI's foundation-level research model for fine-tuning alignment, has also shown strong base-level reasoning performance when scaled.
Anthropic's Claude 3 Opus has excelled in nuanced comprehension and scored competitively on TruthfulQA and BIG-bench. Its successor, Claude 3.7, released in March 2025, refines this with even more contextually aware reasoning and safety alignment, achieving top-tier performance in ARC Challenge and MMLU.
Google DeepMind's Gemini 1.5 performed well in MMLU, but the newer Gemini 2.5, announced in early 2025, has demonstrated notable improvements in coding, logical reasoning, and multilingual understanding. It rivals Claude 3.7 and GPT-4o in most standardized evaluations.
Mistral's Mixtral model, while smaller in scale, remains competitive on synthetic reasoning and coding tasks, and its efficient architecture makes it suitable for on-device AI.
An emerging model, xAI's Grok-1.5, built by Elon Musk's team, has shown robust performance in real-time contextual adaptation.
Finally, DeepSeek's R1 model, a recent entrant from China, is designed with a focus on efficient large-scale reasoning, scoring strongly in few-shot tasks and emerging benchmarks like Arena-Hard and GPQA.
These comparisons illustrate the diversity of strengths across models—from GPT-4o's multimodality, to Claude 3.7’s interpretability and alignment, to Gemini 2.5's coding edge—reflecting the vibrant competition and specialization in current AI development.
2. Speed and Efficiency Benchmarks
The speed at which a model performs tasks—especially under hardware constraints—can make or break its usability in commercial environments. This section introduces the benchmarks used to test computational efficiency and real-time responsiveness of AI systems.
MLPerf: Developed by MLCommons, this benchmark measures the speed and efficiency of AI models, particularly focusing on hardware performance during inference tasks.
Example: Nvidia's H100 chips have shown leading performance in MLPerf benchmarks, highlighting their efficiency in running large AI models. The H100, also known as the Hopper GPU, is Nvidia’s latest AI accelerator, designed specifically for handling the demanding workloads of modern AI models. It offers significant advancements in memory bandwidth, transformer engine optimization, and parallel processing power. These capabilities make the H100 especially relevant for inference and training of large models like GPT-4 and Gemini, where performance, scalability, and speed are critical. Its strong showing in MLPerf tests underscores its role as the industry standard for high-performance AI computing.
3. Context Window and Memory Benchmarks
A model's ability to retain and reference previous information is critical in long documents or conversations. In this section, we discuss how context size and memory usage are benchmarked, revealing how long and complex a task a model can successfully handle.
SWiM (Snorkel Working Memory Test): Evaluates a model's ability to handle long-context tasks, measuring how well it retains and utilizes information over extended inputs.
MileBench: Focuses on multimodal long-context scenarios, testing models on tasks that require understanding and generating responses based on extended multimodal inputs.
Examples: Meta's Llama 4 models, released in April 2025, introduced the Scout and Performance variants with context windows up to 10 million tokens—raising the bar for long-context processing. However, this launch sparked controversy as Meta initially shared benchmark results that were later criticized for being internally validated and lacking transparency, leading to debates over reproducibility and evaluation fairness.
In comparison, Anthropic's Claude 3.7 (released March 2025) handles up to 200,000 tokens with outstanding consistency in memory retention and contextual reasoning, especially across interactive, multi-turn dialogues.
Meanwhile, OpenAI's GPT-4o (Omni), last update released in April 2025, supports 128,000-token windows with superior multimodal integration—balancing long-context capabilities with high accuracy in interpreting mixed inputs (text, images, audio).
In benchmark tests like SWiM and MileBench, GPT-4o and Claude 3.7 consistently outperform Llama 4 in interpretability and coherence over time, even when Llama 4 theoretically supports longer windows.
These comparisons show that architectural optimization and benchmark transparency matter as much as sheer token limits in real-world performance.
4. Image Generation Benchmarks
With text-to-image and multimodal models on the rise, their visual intelligence must also be rigorously tested. This chapter covers the main benchmarks that evaluate an AI's ability to understand and create images based on textual and sequential input.
Mementos: Assesses multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on their ability to reason over sequences of images, testing their understanding of dynamic visual information.
MLPerf (Image Generation): Includes benchmarks for text-to-image generation tasks, evaluating models like Stability AI's Stable Diffusion XL on speed and quality of generated images.
Examples: Stability AI's Stable Diffusion 3 (released March 2025) has been benchmarked using MLPerf, showing significant gains in detail preservation and rendering speed over its predecessor, SDXL.
OpenAI's DALL·E 3, still a strong performer, now works in real-time multimodal mode via GPT-4o, enhancing the pipeline from prompt to generation. MidJourney v6 continues to lead in aesthetic preference, though its proprietary nature limits direct benchmarking.
Google DeepMind’s Imagen 2.5 (April 2025) improves compositional logic and realism, especially in scientific and academic illustrations.
These latest models reflect a spectrum of strengths: Stable Diffusion 3 leads in open-source adaptability and reproducibility; MidJourney v6 dominates visual artistry; DALL·E 3 excels in prompt alignment and real-time generation; Imagen 2.5 achieves remarkable realism for specialized domains. Benchmark results like Zero-1 T2I and Mementos help illuminate these strengths in consistent, measurable ways.
5. Sector-Specific AI Benchmarks
In addition to general benchmarks, several professional sectors have developed their own domain-specific evaluations to assess how well AI models perform within the unique requirements of their fields. These benchmarks are critical in determining the real-world readiness of AI in specialized applications.
Medicine:
MedQA: Evaluates clinical knowledge and reasoning by testing AI on questions derived from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). A high score indicates the model’s potential to assist in medical diagnostics and decision support.
PubMedQA: Focuses on biomedical research comprehension by assessing model accuracy in answering research-based yes/no/maybe questions derived from PubMed abstracts.
BioASQ: Measures biomedical semantic indexing and question answering, testing the AI's ability to process biomedical literature with precision.
Law:
CaseHOLD: Presents hypothetical legal scenarios and tests the AI’s ability to predict court decisions, useful for legal research and predictive analytics.
LegalBench: A comprehensive suite for evaluating AI's capabilities in statutory interpretation, case comparison, and contract analysis.
Finance:
FiQA: Targets financial sentiment analysis, opinion extraction, and question answering. It’s instrumental for fintech solutions and market prediction models.
LIFE (Legal-Investment-Financial-Economic): A broader benchmark spanning regulatory compliance, economic modeling, and fiscal analysis for professional decision-support systems.
Education and Language Learning:
ARC (AI2 Reasoning Challenge): Tests science comprehension at the elementary and middle school levels.
Hellaswag and PIQA: Designed for common-sense reasoning and procedural understanding—vital in adaptive learning platforms.
Examples: GPT-4o and Claude 3.7 have shown high proficiency in MedQA and BioASQ, with Claude’s alignment training resulting in more cautious and accurate medical responses. DeepSeek R1 has scored competitively in LIFE and CaseHOLD, reflecting China’s regulatory-focused innovation in vertical AI. Gemini 2.5 demonstrates strength in FiQA tasks with context-driven economic forecasting.
These benchmarks emphasize how critical it is for models to not only perform well on general-purpose tasks but also to meet the nuanced expectations of professional and regulatory domains.
Software Engineering
SWE-bench (Software Engineering Benchmark) is a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the performance of AI models on real-world software development tasks. It tests a model’s ability to read GitHub issues and produce corresponding code changes or pull requests that solve the described bug or implement a feature—something close to what human developers do every day. It includes:
A dataset of over 2,200 issues across 12 real open-source Python repositories.
Ground-truth pull requests (the correct fix) for each issue.
Evaluations based on the model’s ability to produce syntactically correct and functional solutions.
Examples: GPT-4o and Claude 3.7 currently lead SWE-bench performance when used with planning agents. DeepSeek R1 and Code LLaMA also show competitive results for open-source setups.
Note : OpenAI has just released (April 14th) the GPT-4.1 model family, which includes GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, and GPT-4.1 Nano (available on OpenAI Platform-Playground at release date). These models demonstrate significant improvements in coding tasks, particularly on the SWE-bench Verified benchmark.
GPT-4.1 achieves a score of 54.6% on the SWE-bench Verified benchmark, marking a substantial improvement over previous OpenAI models. This performance reflects enhancements in the model's ability to understand and modify codebases effectively.
While GPT-4.1 shows notable advancements, it's important to consider its performance relative to other leading models:
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Approximately 62.3% on SWE-bench Verified.
Gemini 2.5 Pro: Approximately 63.8% on SWE-bench Verified.
These figures suggest that while GPT-4.1 has improved, other models currently lead in this specific benchmark.
Additional Benchmarks :
Windsurf Benchmark is an internal benchmark developed by the company Windsurf to evaluate AI models on real-world coding tasks. According to OpenAI's announcement of GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 scored 60% higher than GPT-4o on Windsurf’s internal coding benchmark. This benchmark correlates strongly with how often code changes are accepted on the first review. Users noted that GPT-4.1 was 30% more efficient in tool calling and about 50% less likely to repeat unnecessary edits or read code in overly narrow, incremental steps. While the specific tasks and evaluation criteria of the Windsurf benchmark are proprietary, its emphasis on real-world coding efficiency and code review acceptance rates makes it a valuable tool for assessing AI performance in practical software development scenarios.
Qodo Benchmark : Qodo is a company that has developed the AlphaCodium system, which employs a multi-stage, iterative approach to code generation with large language models (LLMs). Unlike traditional one-shot code generation methods, AlphaCodium emphasizes continuous improvement through iteration, involving generating code, running it, testing it, and fixing any issues. This approach ensures the system arrives at a fully validated solution.
In evaluations, AlphaCodium increased the accuracy of solving coding problems from 19% to 44% when used with GPT-4, marking a significant improvement over previous methods.
While Qodo's benchmark is internal and not publicly available, its focus on iterative problem-solving and code validation provides insights into the capabilities of AI models in handling complex coding tasks.
AI Benchmarks in Competitive Programming
CodeForces Benchmark
Overview: The CodeForces Benchmark is a rigorous evaluation framework that assesses AI models' proficiency in competitive programming. By submitting AI-generated solutions directly to the Codeforces platform, this benchmark mirrors real-world competitive programming scenarios, ensuring authentic and challenging assessments.
Key Features:
Real-Time Evaluation: AI models submit solutions to actual Codeforces problems, receiving immediate feedback on correctness and efficiency.
ELO Rating System: Models are assigned ELO ratings based on their performance, allowing direct comparison with human competitors.
Zero False Positives: Utilizes Codeforces' robust testing environment, including special judges, to ensure accurate evaluation without false positives.
Notable Performances:
OpenAI's o3 Model: Achieved an ELO rating of 2727, placing it in the top 0.2% of human competitors, comparable to International Grandmaster-level programmers.
OpenAI's o1-mini Model: Attained an ELO rating of 1578, surpassing nearly 90% of human participants.
Implications: The CodeForces Benchmark highlights the advanced reasoning and problem-solving capabilities of modern AI models, showcasing their potential to perform at or above human expert levels in competitive programming environments.
Mathematical Reasoning Benchmarks
1. AIME Benchmark
Description: Based on the American Invitational Mathematics Examination, this benchmark evaluates AI models on high school-level competition math problems, emphasizing multi-step reasoning.
Notable Performance: OpenAI's o3 Mini achieved an accuracy of 86.5%, outperforming both non-reasoning models and human performance. Vals AI
2. MATH Benchmark
Description: A dataset comprising 12,500 competition-level math problems, covering various topics and difficulty levels.
Notable Performance: OpenAI's o1 achieved a 94.8% accuracy, indicating the model's proficiency in solving complex mathematical problems. OpenReview
3. FrontierMath
Description: A benchmark consisting of hundreds of unpublished, exceptionally challenging math problems crafted by expert mathematicians, covering major branches of modern mathematics.
Notable Performance: Even the most advanced AI systems today, including GPT-4 and Gemini, solve less than 2% of these problems, highlighting the benchmark's difficulty. Epoch AI+3arXiv+3arXiv+3Epoch AI
4. MathArena
Description: A platform for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on the latest math competitions and olympiads, ensuring rigorous assessment of reasoning and generalization capabilities.
Evaluation Method: Models are tested on competitions that took place after their release, avoiding retroactive assessments on potentially leaked or pre-trained material. MathArena.ai
5. Omni-MATH
Description: A comprehensive benchmark designed to assess LLMs' mathematical reasoning at the Olympiad level, comprising 4,428 competition-level problems categorized into over 33 sub-domains and spanning more than 10 distinct difficulty levels.
Notable Performance: OpenAI's o1-mini and o1-preview models achieved 60.54% and 52.55% accuracy, respectively, indicating significant challenges in Olympiad-level mathematical reasoning. omni-math.github.io+4arXiv+4OpenReview+4
6. U-MATH
Description: A university-level benchmark evaluating mathematical skills in LLMs, featuring 1,100 unpublished open-ended problems sourced from teaching materials, balanced across six core subjects, with 20% multimodal problems.
Notable Performance: LLMs achieve a maximum accuracy of only 63% on text-based tasks, with even lower 45% on visual problems, highlighting the challenges presented by U-MATH. OpenReview+1arXiv+1arXiv
7. AceMath
Description: A family of frontier math reasoning models developed by NVIDIA, setting new state-of-the-art accuracy on math reasoning benchmarks.
Notable Performance: AceMath outperforms both leading open-access models (e.g., Qwen2.5-Math-72B-Instruct) and proprietary models (e.g., GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet).
MathVista
Overview: MathVista is a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate AI models' abilities in mathematical reasoning within visual contexts. Developed collaboratively by researchers from UCLA, the University of Washington, and Microsoft Research, it addresses the gap in assessing AI's performance on tasks that require both visual understanding and mathematical problem-solving.
Composition:
Total Examples: 6,141 problems sourced from 31 datasets, including 28 existing multimodal datasets and 3 newly created ones: IQTest, FunctionQA, and PaperQA.
Task Types:
Figure Question Answering (FQA)
Geometry Problem Solving (GPS)
Math Word Problems (MWP)
Textbook Question Answering (TQA)
Visual Question Answering (VQA)
Reasoning Skills Assessed:
Algebraic (ALG)
Arithmetic (ARI)
Geometry (GEO)
Logical (LOG)
Numeric (NUM)
Scientific (SCI)
Statistical (STA)CryptoRank+5mathvista.github.io+5GitHub+5
Evaluation:
Top Performers:
InternVL2-Pro: Achieved an overall accuracy of 65.84%.
GPT-4V: Achieved an accuracy of 49.9%, outperforming Bard by 15.1%.
Human Performance: Approximately 60.3%, indicating that while AI models are improving, there's still a gap to bridge.
Significance: MathVista stands out by combining mathematical reasoning with visual understanding, challenging AI models to interpret and solve problems that are more representative of real-world scenarios. Its diverse dataset and rigorous evaluation metrics make it a valuable tool for benchmarking and advancing AI capabilities in this domain.
Advance AIBenchmarks
Humanity's Last Exam (HLE)
Overview: Developed collaboratively by the Center for AI Safety (CAIS) and Scale AI, HLE is a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess AI models' expert-level reasoning and knowledge across a wide array of disciplines. It was conceived to address the limitations of existing benchmarks, which many experts, including Elon Musk, found too simplistic for evaluating advanced AI capabilities.
Composition:
Total Questions: 3,000, with 2,500 publicly released and 500 held privately to prevent overfitting.
Subject Coverage: Spans over 100 academic subjects, including:
Mathematics: 41%
Physics: 9%
Biology/Medicine: 11%
Humanities/Social Sciences: 9%
Computer Science/AI: 10%
Engineering: 4%
Chemistry: 7%
Other: 9%
Question Format:
Approximately 14% require multimodal understanding (text and images).
24% are multiple-choice; the remainder are short-answer, exact-match questions.
Evaluation Methodology:
Questions were crowdsourced from subject matter experts worldwide.
Initial filtering involved testing questions against leading AI models; those that models failed or performed worse than random guessing were further reviewed by human experts.
Top-rated questions were included in the final dataset, with contributors receiving monetary rewards.
Performance of AI Models:
OpenAI's o3-mini (high): 13.4% accuracy on text-only subset.
DeepSeek-R1: 8.5% accuracy.
Anthropic's Claude 3.7 Sonnet (16K): 8.0% accuracy.
OpenAI's o1: 8.0% accuracy.
Google DeepMind's Gemini 2.5 Pro: 18.2% accuracy.
Significance:
HLE represents a new standard in AI benchmarking, aiming to be the final closed-ended academic benchmark of its kind.
It challenges AI models with questions that require deep reasoning, cross-disciplinary knowledge, and, in some cases, multimodal understanding.
The benchmark's difficulty highlights the current limitations of AI models in achieving human-level expertise across diverse fields.
CharXiv
Charting Gaps in Realistic Chart Understanding in Multimodal LLMs
Overview: CharXiv is a comprehensive evaluation suite designed to assess the chart understanding capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). Developed by researchers from Princeton University, the University of Wisconsin, and The University of Hong Kong, CharXiv addresses the limitations of existing benchmarks that often rely on oversimplified and homogeneous charts with template-based questions.
Key Features:
Dataset: 2,323 natural, challenging, and diverse charts sourced from scientific papers on arXiv.
Question Types:
Descriptive Questions: Focus on examining basic chart elements.
Reasoning Questions: Require synthesizing information across complex visual elements in the chart.
Human Performance: Approximately 80.5% accuracy, highlighting the benchmark's difficulty.
Model Performance:
GPT-4o: Achieved 47.1% accuracy.
InternVL Chat V1.5: Achieved 29.2% accuracy.
Significance: CharXiv reveals a substantial gap between human performance and current MLLMs in chart understanding, emphasizing the need for more realistic and challenging benchmarks to drive progress in this area.
Aider Polyglot Benchmark
Purpose: Designed to evaluate AI models' proficiency in solving challenging coding exercises across diverse programming languages, reflecting real-world software development scenarios.
Composition:
Total Exercises: 225 difficult tasks selected from Exercism's repositories.
Programming Languages: C++, Go, Java, JavaScript, Python, and Rust.
Focus: Emphasizes complex problems requiring deep reasoning, code integration, and multi-file editing.
Evaluation Criteria:
Accuracy: Percentage of correctly solved exercises.
Edit Format Compliance: Adherence to specified code edit formats.
Autonomy: Ability to solve tasks without human intervention.
Notable Performances:
Refact.ai Agent + Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Achieved a leading score of 93.3% with "Thinking" mode enabled and 92.9% without it, showcasing the effectiveness of iterative problem-solving approaches.
R1 + Sonnet Pairing: Attained a 64.0% success rate, demonstrating the benefits of combining models with complementary strengths.
OpenAI's o1 Model: Scored 61.7%, highlighting its strong standalone capabilities.
Significance:
Real-World Applicability: By encompassing multiple programming languages and complex tasks, the benchmark closely mirrors actual software development challenges.
Benchmarking AI Agents: Provides a rigorous platform to assess and compare the effectiveness of AI coding assistants and agents.
Advancing AI Development: Insights from the benchmark inform improvements in AI models' reasoning, code generation, and problem-solving abilities.
BrowseComp bechmark
Benchmarking AI's Web-Browsing Capabilities
Overview: Released by OpenAI in April 2025, BrowseComp is a benchmark designed to evaluate AI agents' abilities to locate hard-to-find, entangled information on the internet. It comprises 1,266 challenging questions that require persistent navigation and synthesis of information across multiple web sources.
Key Features:
Complex Queries: Questions are crafted to be difficult, often necessitating multi-step reasoning and cross-referencing of diverse information sources.
Realistic Scenarios: Tasks mirror real-world information-seeking behaviors, moving beyond simple fact retrieval.
Evaluation Metrics: Performance is measured based on the accuracy of the retrieved information, reflecting the agent's browsing proficiency.
Performance Highlights:
GPT-4o: Achieved 0.6% accuracy without browsing capabilities.
GPT-4o with Basic Browsing: Improved to 1.9% accuracy.
OpenAI o1 (Enhanced Reasoning): Reached 9.9% accuracy.
Deep Research Agent (Specialized Browsing Agent): Attained 51.5% accuracy, showcasing the potential of specialized agents in complex web navigation tasks.
Significance: BrowseComp serves as a rigorous testbed for assessing and advancing the capabilities of AI agents in web-based information retrieval. Its challenging nature ensures that only agents with sophisticated browsing and reasoning skills can perform well, making it a valuable tool for driving progress in this domain.
τ-Bench (Tau-Bench)
Evaluating AI Agents in Real-World Interactions
Overview: τ-Bench is a benchmark designed to assess AI agents' abilities to interact with simulated users and domain-specific tools while adhering to complex policies. It focuses on real-world scenarios, such as retail and airline customer service, where agents must handle dynamic conversations and perform tasks using provided APIs.
Key Features:
Domains: Retail and airline customer service.
Interaction: Simulated multi-turn conversations between AI agents and users.
Tools: Access to domain-specific APIs and policy guidelines.
Evaluation: Success is measured by comparing the final database state after the interaction to the annotated goal state.
Consistency Metric: Introduces the "pass^k" metric to evaluate the reliability of agent behavior over multiple trials.
Performance Highlights:
GPT-4o: Achieved a 61.2% success rate in the retail domain and 35.2% in the airline domain, with an average of 48.2%.
Claude 3 Opus: Scored 44.2% in retail and 34.7% in airline, averaging 39.5%.
GPT-3.5 Turbo: Lower performance with 20.0% in retail and 10.8% in airline, averaging 15.4%.
Challenges Identified:
Inconsistency: Even top-performing models like GPT-4o showed significant drops in performance over multiple trials, with pass^8 scores falling below 25% in the retail domain.
Complex Tasks: Tasks requiring multiple database writes or handling compound user requests posed significant challenges, highlighting the need for improved memory and planning capabilities in AI agents.
Significance: τ-Bench provides a rigorous framework for evaluating AI agents' real-world applicability, emphasizing the importance of consistent behavior, adherence to domain-specific rules, and effective user interaction. It serves as a valuable tool for researchers and developers aiming to enhance the reliability and robustness of AI agents in practical applications.
Conclusion
Understanding the benchmarks used to evaluate AI models is essential for selecting the right tools for specific tasks. These benchmarks provide standardized metrics to compare models on various aspects, including accuracy, speed, reasoning, context handling, memory, and image generation.
As AI technologies continue to advance, staying informed about these evaluation methods will empower you to make informed decisions in your professional and academic endeavors.
Next Steps: To deepen your understanding, consider exploring specific benchmark datasets and conducting hands-on evaluations of AI models using these benchmarks.
Please Rate and Comment
How did you find The book Essential? What has your experience been like using its content? Let us know in the comments at the end of that Page!
If you enjoyed this publication, please rate it to help others discover it. Be sure to subscribe or, even better, become a U365 member for more valuable publications from University 365.
Discussions To Learn Deep Dive - Podcast
Click on the Youtube image below to start the Youtube Podcast.
Discover more Dicusssions To Learn ▶️ Visit the U365-D2L Youtube Channel
Do you have questions about that Publication? Or perhaps you want to check your understanding of it. Why not try playing for a minute while improving your memory? For all these exciting activities, consider asking U.Copilot, the University 365 AI Agent trained to help you engage with knowledge and guide you toward success. U.Copilot is always available, even while you're reading a publication, at the bottom right corner of your screen. You can Always find U.Copilot right at the bottom right corner of your screen, even while reading a Publication. Alternatively, vous can open a separate windows with U.Copilot : www.u365.me/ucopilot.
Try these prompts in U.Copilot:
I just finished reading the publication "Name of Publication", and I have some questions about it: Write your question.
I have just read the Publication "Name of Publication", and I would like your help in verifying my understanding. Please ask me five questions to assess my comprehension, and provide an evaluation out of 10, along with some guided advice to improve my knowledge.
Or try your own prompts to learn and have fun...
Are you a U365 member? Suggest a book you'd like to read in five minutes,and we’ll add it for you! |
Save a crazy amount of time with our 5 MINUTES TO SUCCESS (5MTS) formula.
5MTS is University 365's Microlearning formula to help you gain knowledge in a flash. If you would like to make a suggestion for a particular book that you would like to read in less than 5 minutes, simply let us know as a member of U365 by providing the book's details in the Human Chat located at the bottom left after you have logged in. Your request will be prioritized, and you will receive a notification as soon as the book is added to our catalogue.
NOT A MEMBER YET?
DON'T FORGET TO RATE AND COMMENT ABOUT THAT PUBLICATION
Comments