Benchmark Almanac

Discrim-Eval

Only in system cards

Models make yes or no decisions in templated scenarios that vary age, gender and race. Scored by mixed effects model coefficients.

OpenAI reports normalized coefficients for explicit and implicit demographic mentions. Lower means less bias.

In the authors’ words

As language models (LMs) advance, interest is growing in applying them to high-stakes societal decisions, such as determining financing or housing eligibility. However, their potential for discrimination in such contexts raises ethical concerns, motivating the need for better methods to evaluate these risks. We present a method for proactively evaluating the potential discriminatory impact of LMs in a wide range of use cases, including hypothetical use cases where they have not yet been deployed. Specifically, we use an LM to generate a wide array of potential prompts that decision-makers may input into an LM, spanning 70 diverse decision scenarios across society, and systematically vary the demographic information in each prompt. Applying this methodology reveals patterns of both positive and negative discrimination in the Claude 2.0 model in select settings when no interventions are applied. While we do not endorse or permit the use of language models to make automated decisions for the high-risk use cases we study, we demonstrate techniques to significantly decrease both positive and negative discrimination through careful prompt engineering, providing pathways toward safer deployment in use cases where they may be appropriate. Our work enables developers and policymakers to anticipate, measure, and address discrimination as language model capabilities and applications continue to expand. We release our dataset and prompts at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/discrim-eval

Abstract of Evaluating and Mitigating Discrimination in Language Model Decisions (arXiv:2312.03689, CC0)
Made by Anthropic (Tamkin et al.) Released Dec 2023 Bias, fairness and politics All tasks public Last in a system card Jan 2025 Last model added Jan 2025
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
Scored
Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
Answers
Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
7
System cards report it, from 2 labs

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for Discrim-Eval yet.

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.

7 system cards report it, from 2 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
31 Jan 2025 o3-mini system card Discrimination Evaluation Scores, explicit and implicit discrimination overall coefficients, no single overall score (Table 18, Appendix 8.2) Bias
5 Dec 2024 o1 system card Discrimination Evaluation Scores, explicit and implicit overall average coefficients, no single overall score (Table 25, 8.4) Bias
12 Sep 2024 o1-preview system card Discrimination Evaluation Scores, explicit and implicit overall average coefficients, no single overall score (Table 18, 8.6) Bias
12 Sep 2024 o1-mini system card Discrimination Evaluation Scores, explicit and implicit overall average coefficients, no single overall score (Table 18, 8.6) Bias
4 Mar 2024 Claude 3 Sonnet model card Discrimination score per demographic group and average magnitude, chart without printed values (7.3.1, Figure 19) Bias
4 Mar 2024 Claude 3 Opus model card Discrimination score per demographic group and average magnitude, chart without printed values (7.3.1, Figure 19) Bias
4 Mar 2024 Claude 3 Haiku model card Discrimination score per demographic group and average magnitude, chart without printed values (7.3.1, Figure 20) Bias

More in Safety and alignment

All 444 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%