Model profile
Gemma 4 26B A4B It
Evidence summary
Gemma 4 26B A4B It has an estimated overall rank of #63; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #23–#164. Its behavior-only rank is #77; company governance moves the combined estimate to #63. Published evidence spans 8 evals and 5 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is Vectara HHEM Factual Consistency (factual_consistency_rate, #11 of 94); its weakest is Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboard (cbrn_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
- Artificial Analysis ↗gemma-4-26b-a4b
- Hugging Face ↗google/gemma-4-26B-A4B-it
- OpenRouter ↗google/gemma-4-26b-a4b-it
- Official model page ↗Exact model document · Reviewed official Hugging Face owner · official repository
- Release source ↗repository created at proxy
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-eval | Rank | Value | Distribution | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA-Omnisciencehallucination_rate | #214 / 330 | ↓0.8644 | Source ↗official | |
| Arena Factuality — Text Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating | #35 / 112 | ↑1448.0 | Source ↗official | |
| BullshitBench v2clear_pushback_rate | #72 / 106 | ↑0.16 | Source ↗official | |
| Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate | #165 / 241 | ↑12.92 | Source ↗official | |
| Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate | #237 / 241 | ↑63 | Source ↗official | |
| Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate | #30 / 241 | ↑95 | Source ↗official | |
| Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate | #100 / 239 | ↑97.09 | Source ↗official | |
| MT-JailBench CrescendoXsafety_score | #9 / 21 | ↑26.58 | Source ↗official | |
| TACbase_welfare_rate | #33 / 76 | ↑28.21 | Source ↗self run | |
| Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate | #11 / 94 | ↑94.8 | Source ↗official | |
| Vigil Mental Health Safetyoverall_score | #13 / 23 | ↑38 | Source ↗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.