← Models

Model profile

Command A

Coheredeveloper
2025-03-11release date
#277 / 309overall rank
8eval lineages

Evidence summary

Command A has an estimated overall rank of #277; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #219–#286. Its behavior-only rank is #283; company governance moves the combined estimate to #277. Published evidence spans 8 evals and 5 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is AA-Omniscience (hallucination_rate, #136 of 328); its weakest is Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboard (bias_attack_non_success_rate, #237 of 241).

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-evalRankValueDistributionSource
AA-Omnisciencehallucination_rate#136 / 3280.7732Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatchild_sexual_exploitation#18 / 3222.1Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatdefamation#20 / 3220.5Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chathate#22 / 3212.5Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatindiscriminate_weapons_cbrne#20 / 3229.4Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatintellectual_property#22 / 3218.9Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatnon_violent_crimes#20 / 3221Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatprivacy#23 / 3221.1Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsex_related_crimes#21 / 3219.3Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsexual_content#23 / 3234.8Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatspecialized_advice#24 / 3223.1Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsuicide_self_harm#22 / 3219.1Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatviolent_crimes#20 / 3225.5Source ↗official
Arena Factuality — Text Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating#48 / 1121441.0Source ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#102 / 10481.91Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#237 / 2411.81Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#221 / 24172.67Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#179 / 24148.89Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#125 / 23996.05Source ↗official
HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safetytrust_ethics_safety_score#47 / 5424.04Source ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#33 / 660.4559Source ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#41 / 700.7189Source ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#44 / 700.9136Source ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#59 / 670.3482Source ↗official
Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate#41 / 9490.7Source ↗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