← Models

Model profile

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Alibabadeveloper
2024-09-19release date
#252 / 333Safety rank
#50 / 645Freedom rank

Evidence summary

Safety. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has an estimated Safety rank of #252; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #71–#289. Its behavior-only rank is #242; company governance moves the combined estimate to #252. Published Safety evidence spans 20 eval lineages and 7 of 7 components. Its strongest relative result is TAC (base_welfare_rate, #6 of 87); its weakest is Agent-SafetyBench (harmful_vulnerable_code, #16 of 16).

Freedom. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has an estimated Freedom rank of #50; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #40–#255. Published Freedom evidence spans 14 eval lineages and 1 of 1 components. Its strongest relative result is SafeDialBench (privacy, #1 of 18); its weakest is ThaiSafetyBench (safety_score, #12 of 18).

Compare this model

Only models sharing at least one published sub-eval are listed.

Official and reference links

Finetunes

Direct finetunes linked to this canonical base model. Quantized and repackaged derivatives are excluded.

Safety evals

Rank and direction are specific to the Safety portfolio. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the Safety rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
Agent-SafetyBenchcompromise_availability#15 / 1617.2Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchharmful_vulnerable_code#16 / 1610.8Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchleak_sensitive_information#15 / 1613.2Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchphysical_harm#15 / 1617.6Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchproduce_unsafe_information#15 / 1657.6Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchproperty_loss#15 / 1615.6Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchspread_unsafe_information#13 / 167.6Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchviolate_law_ethics#15 / 1610.4Source ↗official
AgentDrive Safety Compliancescr#40 / 4853.75Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#67 / 800.47Source ↗official
DSPSafeBenchscore#5 / 1273.51Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#41 / 24835.53Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#176 / 24883.5Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#200 / 24845.27Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#229 / 24678.73Source ↗official
FinEval Financial Security Knowledgefinancial_security_accuracy_pct#12 / 1971.7Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#49 / 800.985Source ↗official
HELM Safetybbq#54 / 800.906Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#48 / 800.677Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#65 / 800.96Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#30 / 800.966Source ↗official
IndoBias-Pairs — parity-aware culturally grounded biasparity_score#11 / 2686.3Source ↗official
M3-SafetyBenchoverall_score#8 / 1992.37Source ↗official
PandaBench JBB direct-request panelsafety_rate#14 / 460.99Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchaggression#16 / 187.013Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchethics#15 / 187.357Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchfairness#7 / 187.553Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchlegality#15 / 187.21Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchmorality#16 / 187.06Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchprivacy#18 / 187.05Source ↗official
Shelleducation_jsr#12 / 140.804Source ↗official
Shellfinance_jsr#14 / 140.914Source ↗official
Shellmanagement_jsr#14 / 140.938Source ↗official
SYCON Benchfalse_presupposition_tof#8 / 111.93Source ↗official
SYCON Benchunethical_queries_tof#11 / 110.72Source ↗official
TACbase_welfare_rate#6 / 8746.2Source ↗self run
ThaiSafetyBenchsafety_score#7 / 1885.57Source ↗official
UAVBench safety-critical decision recognitionethical_safety_critical_accuracy#26 / 270.535Source ↗official

Freedom evals

Rank and direction are specific to the Freedom portfolio. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the Freedom rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
Agent-SafetyBenchproduce_unsafe_information#2 / 1657.6Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#14 / 800.47Source ↗official
DSPSafeBenchscore#8 / 1273.51Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#71 / 24883.5Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#49 / 24845.27Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#18 / 24678.73Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#32 / 800.985Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#33 / 800.677Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#16 / 800.96Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#30 / 800.966Source ↗official
PandaBench JBB direct-request panelsafety_rate#24 / 460.99Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchaggression#3 / 187.013Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchethics#4 / 187.357Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchfairness#12 / 187.553Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchlegality#3 / 187.21Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchmorality#3 / 187.06Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchprivacy#1 / 187.05Source ↗official
Shelleducation_jsr#2 / 140.804Source ↗official
Shellfinance_jsr#1 / 140.914Source ↗official
Shellmanagement_jsr#1 / 140.938Source ↗official
SpeechMap model completioncomplete_pct#39 / 18177.6Source ↗official
ThaiSafetyBenchsafety_score#12 / 1885.57Source ↗official
UGI Leaderboard — base-model willingnesswillingness_adherence_score#51 / 1564Source ↗official
UGI Leaderboard — base-model willingnesswillingness_direct_score#46 / 1564Source ↗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-14.7
Government48.8
Diplomacy56
Economy48.8
Society59.2