Benchmark for Assessing Olfactory Perception of Large Language Models
Organizations: Department of Electrical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA · Human Nature Lab, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA · Patina, New York, NY, USA · Department of Ecology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Abstract
Here we introduce the Olfactory Perception (OP) benchmark, designed to assess the capability of large language models (LLMs) to reason about smell. The benchmark contains 1,010 questions across eight task categories spanning odor classification, odor primary descriptor identification, intensity and pleasantness judgments, multi-descriptor prediction, mixture similarity, olfactory receptor activation, and smell identification from real-world odor sources. Each question is presented in two prompt formats, compound names and isomeric SMILES, to evaluate the effect of molecular representations. Evaluating 21 model configurations across major model families, we find that compound-name prompts consistently outperform isomeric SMILES, with gains ranging from +2.4 to +18.9 percentage points (mean approx +7 points), suggesting current LLMs access olfactory knowledge primarily through lexical associations rather than structural molecular reasoning. The best-performing model reaches 64.4% overall accuracy, which highlights both emerging capabilities and substantial remaining gaps in olfactory reasoning. We further evaluate a subset of the OP across 21 languages and find that aggregating predictions across languages improves olfactory prediction, with AUROC = 0.86 for the best performing language ensemble model. LLMs should be able to handle olfactory and not just visual or aural information.
Figures & tables
| Work | Input | Specific Tasks | What is Tested |
| Chemistry LLM benchmarks | |||
| ChemBench Mirza et al. (2025) | Chemistry questions | General, organic, analytical, toxicity chemistry (2,700 Q) | Structural & reaction knowledge |
| ChemIQ Runcie et al. (2025) | SMILES | Carbon counting, ring counting, SMILES-to-IUPAC, NMR elucidation, reaction prediction (816 Q) | Molecular comprehension |
| LlaSMol Yu et al. (2024) | SMILES/SELFIES | Name conversion, property prediction, synthesis (14 tasks, 3M samples) | Fine-tuned LLM chemistry |
| LLMs and Sensory Perception | |||
| Marjieh et al. Marjieh et al. (2024) | Sensory stimuli | Pairwise similarity judgments across pitch, loudness, color, consonants, taste, timbre | 6 modalities (olfaction excluded) |
| Question Category | Options | n | Note | Type | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odor Classification | Odorous/Odorless | 175 | Molecular Weight 350.0 50/50 | Pure | Mayhew et al. (2022) |
| Odor Descriptor | 1 answer, 3 distractors | 175 | Stratified to represent less dominant descriptors, 29 Descriptors total | Pure | https://d3t14p1xronwr0.cloudfront.net/docs/ifra-fragrance-ingredient-glossary-april-2020.pdf (2020) |
| Odor Intensity | High/Low | 175 | Above and below median, with score difference of 10 | Pure | Keller et al. (2017) |
| Odor Pleasantness | High/Low | 175 | Above and below median, with score difference of 10 | Pure | Keller et al. (2017) |
| Rate-all-that-apply | 2-5 answers from 138 distractors | 100 | 25 questions for 2,3,4, and 5 descriptors | Pure | Lee et al. (2023) |
| Odor Similarity of Mixtures | Rater scale | 100 | Mixtures with 2-10 molecules | Mixture | Snitz et al. (2013) ; Bushdid et al. (2014) ; Ravia et al. (2020) |
| Simple ( =700) | Intermediate ( =200) | Hard ( =110) | ||||||||
| Model | Reasoning | OC | OPD | OIn | OPl | RATA | OS | ORA | SIT | Overall |
| Closed-Source | ||||||||||
| GPT-5 | high | 89.7 | 73.7 | 66.3 | 71.4 | 36.4 | 34.0 | 40.8 | 76.7 | 61.1 |
| GPT-5 | low | 90.3 | 72.0 | 70.9 | 71.4 | 30.8 | 28.0 | 40.4 | 73.3 | 59.6 |
| GPT-5 Pro | high | 92.0 | 73.1 | 71.4 | 70.9 | 36.1 | 29.0 | 42.5 | 80.0 | 61.9 |
| GPT-5.2 Pro | high | 88.6 | 76.0 | 72.6 | 72.0 | 34.6 | 28.0 | 52.8 | 73.3 | 62.2 |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Similar | Dissimilar | |||||
| Model | SS (/25) | SlS (/25) | Combined | SlD (/25) | SD (/25) | Overall |
| Closed-Source | ||||||
| GPT-5 (high) | 2 | 2 | 4/50 (8%) | 14 | 16 | 34% |
| GPT-5 (low) | 2 | 5 | 7/50 (14%) | 12 | 9 | 28% |
| GPT-5 Pro | 2 | 2 | 4/50 (8%) | 9 | 16 | 29% |
| GPT-5.2 Pro | 2 | 1 | 3/50 (6%) | 10 | 15 | 28% |
LLM Evaluation
Large language model evaluation measures what models can do, how reliably they do it, and whether benchmark scores predict real-world performance.
See all 2,355 papers