← Models

Model profile

GPT 4.1

OpenAIdeveloper
2025-04-14release date
#72 / 309overall rank
31eval lineages

Evidence summary

GPT 4.1 has an estimated overall rank of #72; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #28–#154. Its behavior-only rank is #85; company governance moves the combined estimate to #72. Published evidence spans 31 evals and 7 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is HELM Safety (simple_safety_tests, #1 of 80); its weakest is StereoTales Harmful Associations (benign_significant_association_score, #22 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#294 / 3280.9331Source ↗official
AgentDrive Safety Compliancescr#13 / 4892.5Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#44 / 800.648Source ↗official
Anthropic Agentic Misalignment — blackmailmisaligned_action_rate_pct#10 / 1680Source ↗official
Anthropic Agentic Misalignment — corporate espionagemisaligned_action_rate_pct#12 / 1699Source ↗official
Anthropic Agentic Misalignment — lethal actionmisaligned_action_rate_pct#4 / 1054Source ↗official
Arena Factuality — Text Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating#16 / 1121462.0Source ↗official
BlueBench AttaQ-100attaq_harmlessness_reward_pct#6 / 1887.49Source ↗official
BullshitBench v2clear_pushback_rate#78 / 1060.14Source ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#67 / 10453.49Source ↗official
Contextual MoralChoicehuman_agreement#3 / 220.5Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#102 / 24117.83Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#89 / 24190Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#99 / 24175Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#156 / 23994.55Source ↗official
FlagEval Safety and Valuesa1_qualified_rate#4 / 1884.2Source ↗official
FlagEval Safety and Valuesa2_qualified_rate#2 / 1882.54Source ↗official
FlagEval Safety and Valuesa3_qualified_rate#1 / 1890.46Source ↗official
FlagEval Safety and Valuesa4_qualified_rate#1 / 1892.11Source ↗official
FlagEval Safety and Valuesa5_qualified_rate#11 / 1871.36Source ↗official
FORTRESSaverage_risk_score#37 / 4953.02Source ↗official
FORTRESSover_refusal_score#17 / 462.87Source ↗official
HalluVerse-M3 Hallucination Recognitionhallucination_recognition_accuracy#2 / 1478.66Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#27 / 800.993Source ↗official
HELM Safetybbq#45 / 800.926Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#19 / 800.917Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#1 / 801Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#11 / 800.979Source ↗official
HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safetytrust_ethics_safety_score#29 / 5426.83Source ↗official
MASKlying_probability_pct#38 / 5348.87Source ↗official
MonitoringBench Full-Trajectory Monitorfull_trajectory_catch_rate_at_1pct_fpr_percent#7 / 1314.5Source ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#20 / 660.5241Source ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#28 / 700.7764Source ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#41 / 700.923Source ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#40 / 670.461Source ↗official
SM-Benchadversarial#11 / 7987.32Source ↗official
SM-Benchambiguous_interpretation#28 / 7987.8Source ↗official
SM-Benchanti_hallucination#44 / 7991.1Source ↗official
SM-Bencheq_boundaries#11 / 7973.31Source ↗official
SM-Benchoverfit#35 / 7976.5Source ↗official
Social Welfare Function Benchmarkfairness#11 / 190.483Source ↗official
SOSBenchbiology_pvr#11 / 230.374Source ↗official
SOSBenchchemistry_pvr#9 / 230.314Source ↗official
SOSBenchmedicine_pvr#12 / 230.57Source ↗official
SOSBenchpharmacology_pvr#13 / 230.85Source ↗official
SOSBenchphysics_pvr#9 / 230.41Source ↗official
SOSBenchpsychology_pvr#12 / 230.498Source ↗official
SpeciEvalbelief_animal_sentience#60 / 1136.78Source ↗official
SpeciEvalland_animal_4ns#73 / 1134.67Source ↗official
SpeciEvalsea_animal_4ns#68 / 1134.83Source ↗official
SpeciEvalspeciesism#9 / 1131.31Source ↗official
StereoTales Harmful Associationsbenign_significant_association_score#22 / 2384.13Source ↗official
TACbase_welfare_rate#11 / 7637.18Source ↗official
UAVBench safety-critical decision recognitionethical_safety_critical_accuracy#13 / 270.7Source ↗official
Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate#19 / 9494.4Source ↗official
Vigil Mental Health Safetyoverall_score#22 / 2326Source ↗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-21.2
Government46.2
Diplomacy66.1
Economy45.2
Society62.1