Benchmark Almanac

VLGuard

Phi-3.5-vision-instruct 9.10 Only in system cards

Vision language models answer safe and unsafe image and text pairs from the VLGuard test set. Responses are judged for harmfulness and refusal.

Built as a safety fine-tuning dataset with a held-out test set. The Phi-3 report gives a judged score from 0 to 10.

Made by Zong et al. (University of Edinburgh and others) Released Feb 2024 Refusing harmful requests All tasks public Last in a system card Mar 2025 Last model added Mar 2025
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.
2
Models scored in lab cards
2
System cards report it, from 1 lab

Phi-3.5-vision-instruct leads with 9.10

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.

  1. 1 Phi-3.5-vision-instruct 9.10
  2. 2 Phi-4-multimodal 8.91
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Phi-3.5-vision-instruct 9.10 Aug 2024 Model card
2 Phi-4-multimodal 8.91 Mar 2025 Model card

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
8.90 8.95 9.00 9.05 9.10 2025 8.90 8.95 9.00 9.05 9.10 2025

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.

2 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
3 Mar 2025 Phi-4-multimodal technical report 8.91 VLGuard (public), 0 to 10, higher is safer (Table 15) Safety
30 Aug 2024 Phi-3.5-vision-instruct technical report 9.1 VLGuard (public), 0 to 10, higher is better (Table 7) 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%