BBQ (Bias Benchmark for QA)
Ambiguous and disambiguated questions probing social stereotypes across nine attributes. Reports accuracy and bias scores.
In the authors’ words
It is well documented that NLP models learn social biases, but little work has been done on how these biases manifest in model outputs for applied tasks like question answering (QA). We introduce the Bias Benchmark for QA (BBQ), a dataset of question sets constructed by the authors that highlight attested social biases against people belonging to protected classes along nine social dimensions relevant for U.S. English-speaking contexts. Our task evaluates model responses at two levels: (i) given an under-informative context, we test how strongly responses reflect social biases, and (ii) given an adequately informative context, we test whether the model's biases override a correct answer choice. We find that models often rely on stereotypes when the context is under-informative, meaning the model's outputs consistently reproduce harmful biases in this setting. Though models are more accurate when the context provides an informative answer, they still rely on stereotypes and average up to 3.4 percentage points higher accuracy when the correct answer aligns with a social bias than when it conflicts, with this difference widening to over 5 points on examples targeting gender for most models tested.
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Multiple choice
DeepSeek-R1 leads with 96.6%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 96.6
DeepSeek-R1
- 91.1 Claude Opus 4
- 90.9 Claude Opus 4.6
- 90.7 Claude Opus 4.1
- 89.9 Claude Fable 5.1
- 89.7 Claude Opus 5.5
- 88.7 Claude Opus 4.5
- 88.2
Olmo 3 32B Think
- 88.1 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 86.3 Claude Sonnet 4
- 85.5
Olmo 3.1 32B Think
- 84.6 Claude Mythos Preview
- 84.5 Claude Fable 5
- 84.0 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 82.2 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 81.6 Claude Opus 5
- 81.3 Claude Opus 4.7
- 80.0 Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 72.4 Claude Sonnet 5
- 72.1 Claude Opus 4.8
- 71.2 Claude Haiku 4.5
- 67.4
Apertus 70B
- 56.0
Mixtral 8x7B
- 55.6 Claude Haiku 5.5
- 1
DeepSeek-R1 96.6%
- 2 Claude Opus 4 91.1%
- 3 Claude Opus 4.6 90.9%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.1 90.7%
- 5 Claude Fable 5.1 89.9%
- 6 Claude Opus 5.5 89.7%
- 7 Claude Opus 4.5 88.7%
- 8
Olmo 3 32B Think 88.2%
- 9 Claude Sonnet 4.6 88.1%
- 10 Claude Sonnet 4 86.3%
- 11
Olmo 3.1 32B Think 85.5%
- 12 Claude Mythos Preview 84.6%
- 13 Claude Fable 5 84.5%
- 14 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 84%
- 15 Claude Sonnet 4.5 82.2%
- 16 Claude Opus 5 81.6%
- 17 Claude Opus 4.7 81.3%
- 18 Claude Sonnet 5.5 80%
- 19 Claude Sonnet 5 72.4%
- 20 Claude Opus 4.8 72.1%
- 21 Claude Haiku 4.5 71.2%
- 22
Apertus 70B 67.4%
- 23
Mixtral 8x7B 56%
- 24 Claude Haiku 5.5 55.6%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 96.6% | Jan 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | Claude Opus 4 | 91.1% | May 2025 | Model card | |
| 3 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 90.9% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.1 | 90.7% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | 89.9% | Sep 2026 | Model card | |
| 6 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 89.7% | Sep 2026 | Model card | |
| 7 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 88.7% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 8 | | 88.2% | Dec 2025 | Model card | |
| 9 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 88.1% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 10 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 86.3% | May 2025 | Model card | |
| 11 | | 85.5% | Dec 2025 | Model card | |
| 12 | Claude Mythos Preview | 84.6% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 13 | Claude Fable 5 | 84.5% | Jun 2026 | Model card | |
| 14 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 84% | Feb 2025 | Model card | |
| 15 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 82.2% | Sep 2025 | Model card | |
| 16 | Claude Opus 5 | 81.6% | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 17 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 81.3% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 18 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 80% | Sep 2026 | Model card | |
| 19 | Claude Sonnet 5 | 72.4% | Jun 2026 | Model card | |
| 20 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 72.1% | May 2026 | Model card | |
| 21 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 71.2% | Oct 2025 | Model card | |
| 22 | | 67.4% | Sep 2025 | Model card | |
| 23 | | 56% | Jan 2024 | Model card | |
| 24 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | 55.6% | Oct 2026 | Model card |
2 models have held number one since 2023
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
The best score passed 85% in Jan 2025
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
44 system cards report it, from 7 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Oct 2026 | Claude Haiku 5.5 system card | 55.6 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt. Ambiguous accuracy 99.65, disambiguated bias 1.67, ambiguous bias 0.27 (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) | Bias |
| 28 Sep 2026 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 system card | 80 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, ambiguous accuracy 99.97%, bias -0.75% disambiguated and 0.03% ambiguous, no system prompt (Tables 4.4.2.A and B) | Bias |
| 22 Sep 2026 | Claude Opus 5.5 system card | 89.7 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, thinking on. Ambiguous accuracy 99.99%, bias -0.93% disambiguated and 0.01% ambiguous (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) | Bias |
| 1 Sep 2026 | Claude Fable 5.1 system card | 89.9 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, thinking on, row labeled Mythos 5.1; ambiguous accuracy 100%, disambiguated bias -0.91%, ambiguous bias 0.03% (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) | Bias |
| 24 Jul 2026 | Claude Opus 5 system card | 81.6 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, thinking off. Ambiguous accuracy 100%, bias -2.00% disambiguated and 0.02% ambiguous (Tables 4.4.2.A and B) | Bias |
| 30 Jun 2026 | Claude Sonnet 5 system card | 72.4 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, thinking off. Ambiguous accuracy 98.6%, bias 1.93% disambiguated and 0.52% ambiguous (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) | Bias |
| 9 Jun 2026 | Claude Fable 5 system card | 84.5 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, row labeled Mythos 5 (the card does not report Fable 5 separately because its added safeguards are not relevant here); ambiguous accuracy 99.9%, disambiguated bias -1.80%, ambiguous bias 0.10% (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) | Bias |
| 28 May 2026 | Claude Opus 4.8 system card | 72.1 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, thinking off, no system prompt. Ambiguous accuracy 99.9%, bias -1.37% disambiguated and 0.07% ambiguous (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) | Bias |
| 16 Apr 2026 | Claude Opus 4.7 system card | 81.3 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, thinking disabled. Ambiguous accuracy 99.9, disambiguated bias -1.68, ambiguous bias 0.04 (Tables 4.5.2.A and 4.5.2.B) | Bias |
| 7 Apr 2026 | Claude Mythos Preview system card | 84.6 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no thinking; ambiguous accuracy 100, disambiguated bias -1.61, ambiguous bias 0.01 (Tables 8.2.2.A and 8.2.2.B) | Bias |
| 17 Feb 2026 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card | 88.1 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy; ambiguous accuracy 97.5, disambiguated bias -0.67, ambiguous bias 1.41 (Tables 3.5.2.A and 3.5.2.B) | Bias |
| 5 Feb 2026 | Claude Opus 4.6 system card | 90.9 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, standard thinking; ambiguous accuracy 99.7, disambiguated bias -0.73, ambiguous bias 0.14 (Tables 3.5.2.A and 3.5.2.B) | Bias |
| 15 Dec 2025 | | 88.2 | BBQ Accuracy 88.2, Bias Ambig. 9.2, Bias Disambig. 1.1, Final Think 3.0 column (Table 54) | Bias |
| 15 Dec 2025 | | 85.5 | BBQ Accuracy 85.5, Bias Ambig. 12.3, Bias Disambig. -0.2, Final Think 3.1 column (Table 54) | Bias |
| 24 Nov 2025 | Claude Opus 4.5 system card | 88.7 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, standard thinking (Table 3.5.2.B; ambiguous accuracy 99.7%, disambiguated bias -0.64%, ambiguous bias 0.26% in Table 3.5.2.A) | Bias |
| 15 Oct 2025 | Claude Haiku 4.5 system card | 71.2 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy, default mode; ambiguous accuracy 98.0, disambiguated bias 0.54, ambiguous bias 1.37 (Tables 2.5.2.A and 2.5.2.B) | Bias |
| 29 Sep 2025 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 system card | 82.2 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy 82.2%, standard thinking. Ambiguous accuracy 99.7%, disambiguated bias -2.21%, ambiguous bias 0.25% (Tables 2.5.2.A and 2.5.2.B) | Bias |
| 17 Sep 2025 | | 67.4 | BBQ accuracy (Table 26) | Bias |
| 7 Aug 2025 | GPT-5 system card | BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous and disambiguated questions with and without web search, no overall score (Table 12) | Bias | |
| 5 Aug 2025 | gpt-oss-20b model card | BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous 0.79 and disambiguated 0.89 questions, no overall score (Table 10) | Bias | |
| 5 Aug 2025 | gpt-oss-120b model card | BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous 0.87 and disambiguated 0.9 questions, no overall score (Table 10) | Bias | |
| 5 Aug 2025 | Claude Opus 4.1 system card addendum | 90.7 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy 90.7%, standard thinking. Ambiguous accuracy 99.8%, disambiguated bias -0.51%, ambiguous bias 0.20% (Tables 2.3.A and 2.3.B) | Bias |
| 17 Jul 2025 | ChatGPT agent system card | BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous questions 0.91 and disambiguated questions 0.79, no overall score (Table 7) | Bias | |
| 22 May 2025 | Claude Sonnet 4 system card | 86.3 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy 86.3%, standard thinking. Ambiguous accuracy 99.4%, disambiguated bias -1.16%, ambiguous bias 0.61% (Tables 2.6.A and 2.6.B) | Bias |
| 22 May 2025 | Claude Opus 4 system card | 91.1 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy 91.1%, standard thinking. Ambiguous accuracy 99.8%, disambiguated bias -0.60%, ambiguous bias 0.21% (Tables 2.6.A and 2.6.B) | Bias |
| 16 Apr 2025 | o4-mini system card | BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous and unambiguous questions and P(not stereotyping), no overall score (Table 7) | Bias | |
| 16 Apr 2025 | o3 system card | BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous and unambiguous questions and P(not stereotyping), no overall score (Table 7) | Bias | |
| 27 Feb 2025 | GPT-4.5 system card | BBQ Evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous and unambiguous questions and P(not-stereotype | not unknown), no overall score (Table 5) | Bias | |
| 25 Feb 2025 | OpenAI deep research system card | BBQ, accuracy on ambiguous questions 0.63 and unambiguous questions 0.95, P(not stereotyping | ambiguous, not unknown) 0.34, no overall score (Table 10) | Bias | |
| 24 Feb 2025 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet system card | 84 | BBQ disambiguated accuracy 84.0%, standard thinking. Ambiguous accuracy 98.8%, disambiguated bias -0.98%, ambiguous bias 0.89% (Tables 1 and 2). The prose in 3.2 swaps the ambiguous and disambiguated labels | Bias |
| 31 Jan 2025 | o3-mini system card | BBQ Evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous and unambiguous questions and P(not stereotyping), no overall score (Table 4) | Bias | |
| 20 Jan 2025 | | 96.6 | BBQ safety score, from HELM (Table 9) | Bias |
| 5 Dec 2024 | o1 system card | BBQ Evaluation, ambiguous and unambiguous accuracy and P(not-stereotype | not unknown), no overall score (Table 4) | Bias | |
| 12 Sep 2024 | o1-preview system card | BBQ Evaluation, ambiguous and unambiguous accuracy and P(not-stereotype | not unknown), no overall score (Table 3) | Bias | |
| 12 Sep 2024 | o1-mini system card | BBQ Evaluation, ambiguous and unambiguous accuracy and P(not-stereotype | not unknown), no overall score (Table 3) | Bias | |
| 31 Jul 2024 | | BBQ, 4-shot top-1, IT, two settings with no overall score: Ambig 88.58, Disambig 82.67 (Table 18) | Bias | |
| 31 Jul 2024 | | BBQ, 4-shot top-1, IT, two settings with no overall score: Ambig 85.99, Disambig 86.94 (Table 18) | Bias | |
| 13 Mar 2024 | | BBQ, IT, two settings with no overall score: Ambig 1-shot top-1 92.54, Disambig top-1 71.99 (Table 8) | Bias | |
| 13 Mar 2024 | | BBQ, IT, two settings with no overall score: Ambig 1-shot top-1 62.58, Disambig top-1 54.62 (Table 8) | Bias | |
| 4 Mar 2024 | Claude 3 Sonnet model card | BBQ, bias scores in ambiguous context and accuracy in disambiguated context per category, chart without printed values (7.4, Figure 21) | Bias | |
| 4 Mar 2024 | Claude 3 Opus model card | BBQ, bias scores in ambiguous context and accuracy in disambiguated context per category, chart without printed values (7.4, Figure 21) | Bias | |
| 4 Mar 2024 | Claude 3 Haiku model card | BBQ, bias scores in ambiguous context and accuracy in disambiguated context per category, chart without printed values (7.4, Figure 21) | Bias | |
| 8 Jan 2024 | | 56 | BBQ accuracy (Figure 5 table) | Bias |
| 11 Jul 2023 | Claude 2 model card | BBQ, bias scores in ambiguous context and accuracy in disambiguated context per category, charts without printed values (3.2, Figures 2 and 3) | Bias |
More in Safety and alignment
- FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
- StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is.
Inkling 98.6%
- AgentDojo In use Agents do tool-use tasks while tools and data carry prompt injections. Attack success rate counts hijacked runs. Grok 4 Fast 0%
- MASK In use Measures whether a model contradicts its own elicited beliefs under pressure to lie. Honesty separated from accuracy.
Muse Spark Open 98.1%
- Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts. GPT-6 Astra 8.50%
- Agentic misalignment suite (Anthropic) In use Agents in simulated company settings face threats or goal conflicts that invite blackmail, leaking or sabotage. Score is the misaligned action rate. Claude Sonnet 4.5 0%