← Models

Model profile

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

Metadeveloper
2024-07-23release date
#193 / 309overall rank
23eval lineages

Evidence summary

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct has an estimated overall rank of #193; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #110–#236. Its behavior-only rank is #182; company governance moves the combined estimate to #193. Published evidence spans 23 evals and 6 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is PHARE (bias_resistance_diagnostic, #3 of 66); its weakest is BlueBench AttaQ-100 (attaq_harmlessness_reward_pct, #17 of 18).

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#65 / 3280.5244Source ↗official
AbstentionBenchanswer_unknown_f1#11 / 200.87Source ↗official
AbstentionBenchfalse_premise_f1#7 / 200.7164Source ↗official
AbstentionBenchstale_f1#9 / 200.6419Source ↗official
AbstentionBenchsubjective_f1#10 / 200.7422Source ↗official
AbstentionBenchunderspecified_context_f1#3 / 200.7157Source ↗official
AbstentionBenchunderspecified_intent_f1#14 / 200.7024Source ↗official
Adversarial Robustnessscore#2 / 810Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchcompromise_availability#14 / 1619.6Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchharmful_vulnerable_code#6 / 1640.4Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchleak_sensitive_information#12 / 1625.2Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchphysical_harm#12 / 1624.4Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchproduce_unsafe_information#4 / 1698.8Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchproperty_loss#14 / 1627.6Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchspread_unsafe_information#6 / 1614.4Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchviolate_law_ethics#5 / 1632.8Source ↗official
AgentHarmharm_score#2 / 124.3Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatchild_sexual_exploitation#16 / 3220.4Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatdefamation#21 / 3220.6Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chathate#24 / 3214.5Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatindiscriminate_weapons_cbrne#21 / 3229.5Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatintellectual_property#23 / 3219Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatnon_violent_crimes#23 / 3223.9Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatprivacy#20 / 3217.9Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsex_related_crimes#22 / 3219.9Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsexual_content#24 / 3235.2Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatspecialized_advice#21 / 3220.2Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsuicide_self_harm#21 / 3215.7Source ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatviolent_crimes#23 / 3230.9Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#52 / 800.586Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardcorrigibility#20 / 244.058Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardhonesty#17 / 243.475Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardnon_manipulation#20 / 243.034Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardrobustness#15 / 243.36Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardsafety#17 / 243.692Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardscheming#17 / 243.53Source ↗official
BlueBench AttaQ-100attaq_harmlessness_reward_pct#17 / 1881.35Source ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#44 / 10431.56Source ↗official
Confabulationsconfabulation_rate#14 / 5214.36Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#165 / 24112.92Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#84 / 24190.17Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#108 / 24173.33Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#125 / 23996.05Source ↗official
FORTRESSaverage_risk_score#19 / 4920.61Source ↗official
FORTRESSover_refusal_score#32 / 466.03Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#67 / 800.965Source ↗official
HELM Safetybbq#33 / 800.945Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#59 / 800.627Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#40 / 800.988Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#41 / 800.959Source ↗official
MASKlying_probability_pct#23 / 5333.3Source ↗official
PandaBench JBB direct-request panelsafety_rate#43 / 460.92Source ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#3 / 660.7523Source ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#55 / 700.674Source ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#57 / 700.8649Source ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#5 / 670.7655Source ↗official
SORRY-Benchavg#20 / 510.24Source ↗official
SOSBenchbiology_pvr#14 / 230.59Source ↗official
SOSBenchchemistry_pvr#13 / 230.468Source ↗official
SOSBenchmedicine_pvr#14 / 230.69Source ↗official
SOSBenchpharmacology_pvr#11 / 230.764Source ↗official
SOSBenchphysics_pvr#11 / 230.444Source ↗official
SOSBenchpsychology_pvr#14 / 230.568Source ↗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-24.2
Government45.1
Diplomacy69.2
Economy40.8
Society63.8

ValueCompass

DimensionValueDistribution
Universalism66.2
Self-direction48.4
Care / Harm18.5
Fairness / Cheating17.4
Ethical88.6