Institutional dossier
The documented history of arXiv: chronology, people, research, capital and compute, and governance. Every statement opens its source and its limits.
Records dated 2024-05-15 to 2025-04-29 · 0 undated
3 claims · 2 sources · 3 not editorially accepted. The counts describe this selection. They do not measure completeness or independent confirmation.
Scope, evidence and limits
Description: Preprint repository operated by Cornell University, recorded as the publisher of record for the preprint expressions retrieved here. The papers' institutional affiliations were not retrieved; a later admission may prefer a different publisher attribution.
The records are grouped automatically. No human inspection of the selected claims, source paths or framing is recorded for this dossier. Each source passage shows how it was checked.
The dossier is computed from existing records. It is not a continuous history of the institution, and a missing record does not mean that an event or relationship did not happen. The chronology uses the dates of events and reports, not the date the public could first have known of them. Later sources can describe earlier events.
Select any statement to see its exact claim, qualification, date note, evidence passage, location in the source, source version and review status. The description above is Selekoa’s stored description of the institution, based on these sources:
Chronology
Records about the institution itself and documented changes to its frameworks, by year. Expand a year to read the claims. People’s other institutional records and related documents have their own sections. Where a date gives only the year or month, the order within it is unknown.
2024Record year · 1 claims
- The WMDP benchmark paper states that it publicly releases a dataset of 3,668 multiple-choice questions serving as a proxy measurement of hazardous knowledge in biosecurity, cybersecurity and chemical security, developed by a consortium of academics and technical consultants and filtered to remove sensitive information before release.The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearning (arXiv:2403.03218) → reports evaluation of → Biological misuse capability evaluationInspect claim & evidence ↗
Record about this institution’s framework · Stated in source · Supported
Qualification and date notes
Records what the benchmark states it measures and how its authors describe its release, not any finding about a system. The paper's unlearning method and results are deliberately not recorded. Only the abstract page was read. The authors' statement that the dataset was filtered is their own. Only the benchmark's stated object of measurement and release statement are recorded; the paper's method sections were not read.
Version 7 of the preprint, as described on the arXiv abstract page; version 1 was submitted on 5 March 2024.
2025Record year · 2 claims
- The Virology Capabilities Test paper states that it presents a large language model benchmark measuring the capability to troubleshoot complex virology laboratory protocols, built from the inputs of dozens of expert virologists.Virology Capabilities Test (VCT): A Multimodal Virology Q&A Benchmark (arXiv:2504.16137) → reports evaluation of → Biological misuse capability evaluationInspect claim & evidence ↗
Record about this institution’s framework · Stated in source · Supported
Qualification and date notes
Records what the benchmark states it measures, as described in its abstract, not any finding about a system. Only the abstract page was read; the paper's construction and contents were not inspected. The quoted phrase is the benchmark's own statement of what it measures and is required to identify it; no question, protocol or procedure is recorded, and the paper body was deliberately not read.
Version 2 of the preprint, as described on the arXiv abstract page; version 1 was submitted on 21 April 2025.
- The Virology Capabilities Test paper states that expert virologists with internet access scored an average of 22.1% on the benchmark's questions within their own sub-areas of expertise, while the most performant model it tested, OpenAI's o3, reached 43.8% accuracy and outperformed 94% of those experts within their sub-areas.Virology Capabilities Test (VCT): A Multimodal Virology Q&A Benchmark (arXiv:2504.16137) → states evaluation result → The paper states that expert virologists with internet access scored an average of 22.1% on questions in their own sub-areas, while the most performant model tested, OpenAI's o3, reached 43.8% accuracy, outperforming 94% of the expert virologists within their sub-areas. Inspect claim & evidence ↗
Record about this institution’s framework · Stated in source · Supported
System: The models the paper tested, of which it names OpenAI's o3 as the most performant
Qualification and date notes
A benchmark result as the paper states it, for the models and expert comparison group it describes at that date. Scores on this benchmark are not a measure of real-world capability or risk, and nothing is generalised to other models or later versions. Only the abstract page was read, so the figures are the paper's own summary. The figures and the comparison are recorded; no question, subject matter or procedure is recorded. Paraphrase is used because the abstract page renders the numbers in LaTeX markup.
As stated in version 2 of the preprint; the dates of the model evaluations are not given on the abstract page.