← Models

Model profile

GPT Oss 120B

OpenAIdeveloper
2025-08-05release date
#113 / 309overall rank
31eval lineages
2discovery sources

Evidence summary

GPT Oss 120B has an estimated overall rank of #113; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #70–#198. Its behavior-only rank is #122; company governance moves the combined estimate to #113. Published evidence spans 31 evals and 7 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is HELM Safety (harmbench, #1 of 80); its weakest is AgentDrive Safety Compliance (scr, #48 of 48).

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#261 / 3280.9082Source ↗official
AgentAbstainabstain#11 / 1759.5Source ↗official
AgentAbstaincar#10 / 1758.2Source ↗official
AgentAbstainpaired#9 / 1746.2Source ↗official
AgentDrive Safety Compliancescr#48 / 4810Source ↗official
AIMS Safety-Classifier Competenceaverage_harmful_f1#6 / 110.803Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#5 / 800.88Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardcorrigibility#16 / 244.136Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardhonesty#8 / 243.733Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardnon_manipulation#7 / 243.611Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardrobustness#3 / 244.347Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardsafety#16 / 243.731Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardscheming#10 / 243.873Source ↗official
ANIMAscore#14 / 220.6866Source ↗self run
Arena Factuality — Text Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating#107 / 1121389.0Source ↗official
BrokenMathsycophancy#2 / 933.7Source ↗official
BullshitBench v2clear_pushback_rate#91 / 1060.08Source ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#20 / 1047.245Source ↗official
Confabulationsconfabulation_rate#24 / 5223.27Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchbasaglia_score#31 / 5065.67Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchbaudrillard_score#33 / 5064.03Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchhuxley_score#33 / 5074.63Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchlaguardia_score#32 / 5068.63Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchorwell_score#27 / 5068.8Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchpetrov_score#35 / 5076.6Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#30 / 24139.79Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#155 / 24186.17Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#64 / 24185.56Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#204 / 23989.09Source ↗official
FORTRESSaverage_risk_score#1 / 498.24Source ↗official
FORTRESSover_refusal_score#45 / 4618Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#18 / 800.995Source ↗official
HELM Safetybbq#2 / 800.985Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#1 / 801Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#1 / 801Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#62 / 800.927Source ↗official
JuICE Cultural-Error Span Detectionf1#7 / 100.3657Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchethics#14 / 4361.84Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchfactuality#22 / 4348.37Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchlegality#5 / 4386.06Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchprivacy#13 / 4365.7Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchpsychological_health#9 / 4371.2Source ↗official
Manager Coercion Benchcoercion_ladder_depth#27 / 319Source ↗self run
MASKlying_probability_pct#2 / 538Source ↗official
ODCV-Benchaverage_severity#8 / 121.569Source ↗official
ODCV-Benchmisalignment_rate#9 / 1236.25Source ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#46 / 660.3884Source ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#58 / 700.6608Source ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#33 / 700.9375Source ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#16 / 670.659Source ↗official
SpeciEvalbelief_animal_sentience#94 / 1136.44Source ↗official
SpeciEvalland_animal_4ns#53 / 1134.49Source ↗official
SpeciEvalsea_animal_4ns#86 / 1134.94Source ↗official
SpeciEvalspeciesism#93 / 1132.57Source ↗official
StereoTales Harmful Associationsbenign_significant_association_score#11 / 2386.36Source ↗official
TACbase_welfare_rate#25 / 7631.4Source ↗self run
Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate#81 / 9485.8Source ↗official
Vigil Mental Health Safetyoverall_score#15 / 2335Source ↗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-15.3
Government48.2
Diplomacy66.4
Economy45.8
Society61.7

CAISI CCP narrative alignment

DimensionValueDistribution
CCP narrative alignment2.5

CCPBench political narrative alignment

DimensionValueDistribution
CCP-narrative alignment — all questions1.35
CCP-narrative alignment — China topics1.36
CCP-narrative alignment — non-China controls1.33