Benchmark Almanac

First-Person Fairness evaluation

GPT-5.5 1.12% leads since Apr 2026 Only in system cards

Tests whether a user's name (a demographic proxy) changes responses, using an LLM research assistant to detect harmful stereotypes.

Paper is public. The evaluation set is internal to OpenAI.

In the authors’ words

Evaluating chatbot fairness is crucial given their rapid proliferation, yet typical chatbot tasks (e.g., resume writing, entertainment) diverge from the institutional decision-making tasks (e.g., resume screening) which have traditionally been central to discussion of algorithmic fairness. The open-ended nature and diverse use-cases of chatbots necessitate novel methods for bias assessment. This paper addresses these challenges by introducing a scalable counterfactual approach to evaluate "first-person fairness," meaning fairness toward chatbot users based on demographic characteristics. Our method employs a Language Model as a Research Assistant (LMRA) to yield quantitative measures of harmful stereotypes and qualitative analyses of demographic differences in chatbot responses. We apply this approach to assess biases in six of our language models across millions of interactions, covering sixty-six tasks in nine domains and spanning two genders and four races. Independent human annotations corroborate the LMRA-generated bias evaluations. This study represents the first large-scale fairness evaluation based on real-world chat data. We highlight that post-training reinforcement learning techniques significantly mitigate these biases. This evaluation provides a practical methodology for ongoing bias monitoring and mitigation.

Abstract of First-Person Fairness in Chatbots (arXiv:2410.19803, CC0)
Made by OpenAI Released Oct 2024 Bias, fairness and politics Tasks kept private Last in a system card Jul 2026 Last model added Jul 2026
Scored
Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
Answers
Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
10
Models scored in lab cards
13
System cards report it, from 1 lab

GPT-5.5 leads with 1.12% among models released by Jul 2026

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.

The newest model with a score here came out in Jul 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 GPT-5.5 1.12%
  2. 2 GPT-5.5 Instant 1.01%
  3. 3 GPT-5.2 1.00%
  4. 4 GPT-5.6 Sol 0.98%
  5. 5 GPT-5.4 0.88%
  6. 6 GPT-5.6 Terra 0.88%
  7. 7 o4-mini 0.70%
  8. 8 GPT-5.6 Luna 0.61%
  9. 9 o3 0.60%
  10. 10 ChatGPT agent 0.40%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5.5 1.12% Apr 2026 Model card
2 GPT-5.5 Instant 1.01% May 2026 Model card
3 GPT-5.2 1.00% Dec 2025 Model card
4 GPT-5.6 Sol 0.98% Jun 2026 Model card
5 GPT-5.4 0.88% Mar 2026 Model card
6 GPT-5.6 Terra 0.88% Jun 2026 Model card
7 o4-mini 0.70% Apr 2025 Model card
8 GPT-5.6 Luna 0.61% Jun 2026 Model card
9 o3 0.60% Apr 2025 Model card
10 ChatGPT agent 0.40% Jul 2025 Model card

3 models have held number one since its release in Oct 2024

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

OpenAI
Lab claims Not tested since Jul 2026
GPT-5.5 1.12%

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.5 GPT-5.2 o4-mini 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.5 o4-mini

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.

13 system cards report it, from 1 lab

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
9 Jul 2026 GPT-5.6 Terra system card 0.88 First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) Bias
9 Jul 2026 GPT-5.6 Sol system card 0.98 First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) Bias
9 Jul 2026 GPT-5.6 Luna system card 0.61 First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) Bias
25 Jun 2026 GPT-5.6 Terra system card 0.88 First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) Bias
25 Jun 2026 GPT-5.6 Sol system card 0.98 First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) Bias
25 Jun 2026 GPT-5.6 Luna system card 0.61 First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) Bias
4 May 2026 GPT-5.5 Instant system card 1.01 First-person fairness evaluation, harm_overall 0.0101, lower is better (Table 6) (fraction converted to percent) Bias
23 Apr 2026 GPT-5.5 system card 1.12 First-person fairness evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better (Table 9) (fraction converted to percent) Bias
5 Mar 2026 GPT-5.4 system card 0.88 First-person fairness evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better (Table 10) (fraction converted to percent) Bias
11 Dec 2025 GPT-5.2 system card addendum 0.997 First-person fairness evaluation, harm_overall 0.00997, gpt-5.2-thinking, lower is better (Table 9) Bias
17 Jul 2025 ChatGPT agent system card 0.4 First-person fairness, net_bias 0.004 without tools, 0.003 with tools, lower is better (Table 8) Bias
16 Apr 2025 o4-mini system card 0.7 First-person fairness evaluation, net_bias 0.007 (Table 8) Bias
16 Apr 2025 o3 system card 0.6 First-person fairness evaluation, net_bias 0.006 (Table 8) 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%