Benchmark Almanac

OR-Bench

GPT-4o May 2024 6.80% leads since May 2024 Only in system cards

Models meet benign and borderline prompts and the benchmark measures how often they wrongly refuse. Reports false refusal rate.

Public over-refusal benchmark for large language models.

In the authors’ words

Large Language Models (LLMs) require careful safety alignment to prevent malicious outputs. While significant research focuses on mitigating harmful content generation, the enhanced safety often come with the side effect of over-refusal, where LLMs may reject innocuous prompts and become less helpful. Although the issue of over-refusal has been empirically observed, a systematic measurement is challenging due to the difficulty of crafting prompts that can elicit the over-refusal behaviors of LLMs. This study proposes a novel method for automatically generating large-scale over-refusal datasets. Leveraging this technique, we introduce OR-Bench, the first large-scale over-refusal benchmark. OR-Bench comprises 80,000 over-refusal prompts across 10 common rejection categories, a subset of around 1,000 hard prompts that are challenging even for state-of-the-art LLMs, and an additional 600 toxic prompts to prevent indiscriminate responses. We then conduct a comprehensive study to measure the over-refusal of 32 popular LLMs across 8 model families. Our datasets are publicly available at https://huggingface.co/bench-llms and our codebase is open-sourced at https://github.com/justincui03/or-bench. We hope this benchmark can help the community develop better safety aligned models.

Abstract of OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models (arXiv:2405.20947, CC0)
Made by Cui et al. Released May 2024 Jailbreaks and prompt injection All tasks public Last in a system card Oct 2026 Last model added Oct 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
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.
28
Models scored on its own leaderboard
3
System cards report it, from 1 lab

GPT-4o leads with 6.80% among models released by Jun 2024

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.

The newest model with a score here came out in Jun 2024, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 GPT-4o May 2024 6.80%
  2. 2 Gemini 1.0 Pro 9.70%
  3. 3 Mistral Large 9.80%
  4. 4 GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) 12.2%
  5. 5 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jan 2024 12.7%
  6. 6 GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 12.8%
  7. 7 mistral-small-2402 13.3%
  8. 8 Mistral Medium 14%
  9. 9 Gemma 7B 26.3%
  10. 10 Llama 3-70B 37.7%
  11. 11 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jun 2023 38.4%
  12. 12 Qwen1.5-7B 39.2%
  13. 13 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 43.8%
  14. 14 Qwen1.5-72B 46.9%
  15. 15 Qwen1.5-32B 50.8%
  16. 16 GPT-3.5 Turbo (Mar 2023) 57.4%
  17. 17 Gemma 2 27B 62%
  18. 18 Llama 3-8B 69.4%
  19. 19 Gemma 2 9B 79.9%
  20. 20 Gemini 1.5 Flash May 2024 84.3%
  21. 21 Llama 2-7B 87.5%
  22. 22 Gemini 1.5 Pro May 2024 88%
  23. 23 Llama 2-13B 91%
  24. 24 Claude 3 Opus 91%
  25. 25 Claude 3 Sonnet 94.5%
  26. 26 Llama 2-70B 96.1%
  27. 27 Claude 3 Haiku 96.3%
  28. 28 Claude 2.1 99.8%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-4o May 2024 6.80% May 2024 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 1.0 Pro 9.70% Dec 2023 Official leaderboard
3 Mistral Large 9.80% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) 12.2% Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jan 2024 12.7% Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 12.8% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
7 mistral-small-2402 13.3% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
8 Mistral Medium 14% Dec 2023 Official leaderboard
9 Gemma 7B 26.3% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
10 Llama 3-70B 37.7% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
11 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jun 2023 38.4% Jun 2023 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen1.5-7B 39.2% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
13 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 43.8% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen1.5-72B 46.9% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen1.5-32B 50.8% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
16 GPT-3.5 Turbo (Mar 2023) 57.4% Mar 2023 Official leaderboard
17 Gemma 2 27B 62% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
18 Llama 3-8B 69.4% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
19 Gemma 2 9B 79.9% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
20 Gemini 1.5 Flash May 2024 84.3% May 2024 Official leaderboard
21 Llama 2-7B 87.5% Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
22 Gemini 1.5 Pro May 2024 88% May 2024 Official leaderboard
23 Llama 2-13B 91% Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
24 Claude 3 Opus 91% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
25 Claude 3 Sonnet 94.5% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
26 Llama 2-70B 96.1% Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
27 Claude 3 Haiku 96.3% Mar 2024 Official leaderboard
28 Claude 2.1 99.8% Nov 2023 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 3 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

2 models have held number one since its release in May 2024

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

Google DeepMind OpenAI Meta
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jun 2024
GPT-4o 6.80%
Lab claims 2 leaders

Scores over time

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

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Muse Spark 1.1 GPT-4o Mistral Medium GPT-3.5 Turbo GPT-3.5 Turbo (Mar 2023) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Muse Spark 1.1 GPT-4o

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.

3 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
23 Oct 2026 Muse Spark 1.3 system card 16.8 OR-Bench false refusal rate, Muse Spark 1.3 (API) (Table 2, Figure 23). Muse system 9.3 Robustness
9 Jul 2026 Muse Spark 1.1 system card 4.8 OR-Bench false refusal rate, 1263 sampled prompts (Table 2, Figure 25) Robustness
12 Jun 2026 Muse Spark system card 8 OR-Bench FRR, 1263 sampled prompts (Table 2, Table 19) Robustness

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%