← Models

Model profile

Command A

Coheredeveloper
2025-03-11release date
#244 / 267overall rank
6eval lineages

Evidence summary

Command A has an estimated overall rank of #244; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #200–#257. Its behavior-only rank is #249; company governance moves the combined estimate to #244. Published evidence spans 6 evals and 5 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is AA-Omniscience (hallucination_rate, #123 of 311); its weakest is Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboard (bias_attack_non_success_rate, #256 of 260).

Compare this model

Only models sharing at least one published sub-eval are listed.

Official and reference links

Published eval results

Rank is within that sub-eval. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the global rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionBetterSource
AA-Omnisciencehallucination_rate#123 / 3110.7615↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatchild_sexual_exploitation#18 / 3222.1↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatdefamation#20 / 3220.5↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chathate#22 / 3212.5↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatindiscriminate_weapons_cbrne#20 / 3229.4↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatintellectual_property#22 / 3218.9↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatnon_violent_crimes#20 / 3221↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatprivacy#23 / 3221.1↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsex_related_crimes#21 / 3219.3↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsexual_content#23 / 3234.8↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatspecialized_advice#24 / 3223.1↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsuicide_self_harm#22 / 3219.1↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatviolent_crimes#20 / 3225.5↓ lowerSource ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#103 / 10581.91↓ lowerSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#256 / 2601.81↑ higherSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#240 / 26072.67↑ higherSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#196 / 26048.89↑ higherSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#136 / 25896.05↑ higherSource ↗official
HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safetytrust_ethics_safety_score#47 / 5424.04↑ higherSource ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#33 / 660.4559↑ higherSource ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#41 / 700.7189↑ higherSource ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#44 / 700.9136↑ higherSource ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#59 / 670.3482↑ higherSource ↗official

Values evaluations

Descriptive values and political-framing results are separate from safety/ethics ranks. Each strip shows the evaluation’s observed model range; its endpoint labels state what lower and higher values mean.

UGI Political Values

DimensionValueDistribution
Political Lean-17.7
Government46.9
Diplomacy68.1
Economy44.2
Society61.9

The Economist World Values Survey Cultural Map

DimensionValueDistribution
Survival ↔ Self-expression1.78
Traditional ↔ Secular2.62