Model profile
Qwen3.5 122B A10B
Evidence summary
Qwen3.5 122B A10B has an estimated overall rank of #219; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #91–#283. Its behavior-only rank is #215; company governance moves the combined estimate to #219. Published evidence spans 5 evals and 5 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboard (harmful_attack_non_success_rate, #20 of 241); its weakest is Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboard (cbrn_attack_non_success_rate, #228 of 241).
Compare this model
Only models sharing at least one published sub-eval are listed.
Official and reference links
- Artificial Analysis ↗qwen3-5-122b-a10b
- Hugging Face ↗Qwen/Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- OpenRouter ↗qwen/qwen3.5-122b-a10b
- 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 | #219 / 328 | ↓0.8709 | Source ↗official | |
| Arena Factuality — Text Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating | #66 / 112 | ↑1432.0 | Source ↗official | |
| Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate | #29 / 241 | ↑40.31 | Source ↗official | |
| Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate | #228 / 241 | ↑70.17 | Source ↗official | |
| Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate | #20 / 241 | ↑97.78 | Source ↗official | |
| Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate | #117 / 239 | ↑96.36 | Source ↗official | |
| Pokee-Isaac model card — DTAPbenign_task_success_rate | #4 / 6 | ↑0.794 | Source ↗official | |
| Pokee-Isaac model card — DTAPcombined_attack_success_rate | #4 / 6 | ↓0.54 | Source ↗official | |
| Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate | #65 / 94 | ↑88.8 | 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.