← Models

Model profile

Deepseek V3

DeepSeekdeveloper
2024-12-26release date
#136 / 309overall rank
33eval lineages

Evidence summary

Deepseek V3 has an estimated overall rank of #136; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #62–#200. Its behavior-only rank is #116; company governance moves the combined estimate to #136. Published evidence spans 33 evals and 7 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is Contextual MoralChoice (human_agreement, #2 of 22); its weakest is SOSBench (medicine_pvr, #23 of 23).

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#204 / 3280.8586Source ↗official
AgentDrive Safety Compliancescr#6 / 4895Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#73 / 800.408Source ↗official
AnimalHarmBenchscore#5 / 100.04Source ↗official
BullshitBench v2clear_pushback_rate#101 / 1060.04Source ↗official
ChiSafetyBenchharmful_response_rate#5 / 140.43Source ↗official
ChiSafetyBenchmcq_score#6 / 1284.17Source ↗official
Confabulationsconfabulation_rate#44 / 5239.11Source ↗official
Contextual MoralChoicehuman_agreement#2 / 220.6Source ↗official
Emergent Collusionhigh_illegality_game_rate#3 / 130.26Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#156 / 24113.18Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#134 / 24187.33Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#172 / 24152.22Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#201 / 23989.64Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#61 / 800.971Source ↗official
HELM Safetybbq#13 / 800.967Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#72 / 800.497Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#67 / 800.953Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#22 / 800.971Source ↗official
HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safetytrust_ethics_safety_score#22 / 5427.39Source ↗official
JailBenchjailbreak_success_rate#10 / 1470.67Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchethics#38 / 4320.88Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchfactuality#34 / 4329.99Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchlegality#42 / 437.76Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchprivacy#42 / 436.72Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchpsychological_health#36 / 4325.03Source ↗official
LLM Ethics Benchmarkscore#3 / 586.1Source ↗official
MASKlying_probability_pct#49 / 5354.48Source ↗official
OpenAgentSafetyllm_judge_safety_vulnerable#4 / 762.23Source ↗official
OpenAgentSafetyrule_based_safety_vulnerable#2 / 732.44Source ↗official
OpenAgentSafetysuccessful_completion#4 / 722.12Source ↗official
PandaBench JBB direct-request panelsafety_rate#24 / 460.985Source ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#13 / 660.5751Source ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#57 / 700.6675Source ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#48 / 700.909Source ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#62 / 670.3107Source ↗official
Reward Hacking Benchmarkintegrity_score#3 / 1399.4Source ↗official
Social Welfare Function Benchmarkfairness#3 / 190.594Source ↗official
SOSBenchbiology_pvr#22 / 230.856Source ↗official
SOSBenchchemistry_pvr#17 / 230.6Source ↗official
SOSBenchmedicine_pvr#23 / 230.872Source ↗official
SOSBenchpharmacology_pvr#15 / 230.916Source ↗official
SOSBenchphysics_pvr#17 / 230.722Source ↗official
SOSBenchpsychology_pvr#21 / 230.82Source ↗official
SpeciesismBenchmorally_wrong_rate#7 / 832.7Source ↗official
SpeciesismBenchspeciesism_recognition_rate#5 / 887.71Source ↗official
SpeciEvalbelief_animal_sentience#96 / 1136.42Source ↗official
SpeciEvalland_animal_4ns#95 / 1134.86Source ↗official
SpeciEvalsea_animal_4ns#99 / 1135.1Source ↗official
SpeciEvalspeciesism#92 / 1132.54Source ↗official
SYCON Benchfalse_presupposition_tof#5 / 112.88Source ↗official
SYCON Benchunethical_queries_tof#5 / 111.99Source ↗official
TACbase_welfare_rate#7 / 7642.3Source ↗self run
UAVBench safety-critical decision recognitionethical_safety_critical_accuracy#4 / 270.755Source ↗official
Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate#23 / 9493.9Source ↗official
VETO Misfired Alignmentmisfired_alignment_rate_pct#3 / 255.2Source ↗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-20.4
Government47
Diplomacy66.2
Economy45.8
Society60.4

ValueCompass

DimensionValueDistribution
Universalism70.4
Self-direction47.7
Care / Harm34.5
Fairness / Cheating32.2
Ethical91.7

Taiwan Sovereignty Benchmark Pro

DimensionValueDistribution
Pro-Taiwan rubric compatibility10
Warning-phrase rate40
Soft-censorship rate0
API-error rate0