Benchmark Almanac

SALAD-Bench

Granite 4.0 H Small 97.3% leads since Oct 2025 Fading

Models answer harmful questions organized in a three-level taxonomy, some with attack or defense changes and some multiple-choice. The MD-Judge evaluator labels responses as safe or unsafe.

ACL 2024 Findings paper.

In the authors’ words

In the rapidly evolving landscape of Large Language Models (LLMs), ensuring robust safety measures is paramount. To meet this crucial need, we propose SALAD-Bench, a safety benchmark specifically designed for evaluating LLMs, attack, and defense methods. Distinguished by its breadth, SALAD-Bench transcends conventional benchmarks through its large scale, rich diversity, intricate taxonomy spanning three levels, and versatile functionalities.SALAD-Bench is crafted with a meticulous array of questions, from standard queries to complex ones enriched with attack, defense modifications and multiple-choice. To effectively manage the inherent complexity, we introduce an innovative evaluators: the LLM-based MD-Judge for QA pairs with a particular focus on attack-enhanced queries, ensuring a seamless, and reliable evaluation. Above components extend SALAD-Bench from standard LLM safety evaluation to both LLM attack and defense methods evaluation, ensuring the joint-purpose utility. Our extensive experiments shed light on the resilience of LLMs against emerging threats and the efficacy of contemporary defense tactics. Data and evaluator are released under https://github.com/OpenSafetyLab/SALAD-BENCH.

Abstract of SALAD-Bench: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Safety Benchmark for Large Language Models (arXiv:2402.05044, CC0)
Made by Shanghai AI Laboratory (OpenSafetyLab) Released Feb 2024 Refusing harmful requests All tasks public Last in a launch post Apr 2026 , dropped after it saturated Last model added Apr 2026
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
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.
3
Models scored in lab cards
3
Launch posts list it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Granite 4.0 H Small leads with 97.3% among models released by Apr 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 Apr 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 Granite 4.0 H Small 97.3%
  2. 2 Granite 4.1 30B 96.4%
  3. 3 granite-4.0-1b 93.4%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Granite 4.0 H Small 97.3% Oct 2025 Model card
2 Granite 4.1 30B 96.4% Apr 2026 Model card
3 granite-4.0-1b 93.4% Oct 2025 Model card

Number one over time

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

IBM
Lab claims Passed 85% in Oct 2025, by Granite 4.0 H Small

The best score passed 85% in Oct 2025

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
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Granite 4.0 H Small 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Granite 4.0 H Small

Labs headline it less often now, last in Apr 2026

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

IBM
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
29 Apr 2026 Granite 4.1 30B 96.4 SALAD-Bench
28 Oct 2025 granite-4.0-1b 93.4 SALAD-Bench
2 Oct 2025 Granite 4.0 H Small 97.3 SALAD-Bench

One system card reports it

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
5 Jan 2026 Falcon H1R 7B technical report SALAD Bench safe rate, CoT+Answer, three sets with no overall: attack enhanced 97.86, defense enhanced 99.5, base 98.6 (Table 10) Safety

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%