Benchmark Almanac

XSTest

Cohere Command A 1.10% leads since Apr 2025 Only in system cards

Models answer 250 safe prompts that resemble unsafe ones and 200 unsafe contrast prompts. Labs usually report the incorrect refusal rate on safe prompts.

Anthropic model cards report the incorrect refusal rate on the non-malicious prompts, where lower is better.

In the authors’ words

Without proper safeguards, large language models will readily follow malicious instructions and generate toxic content. This risk motivates safety efforts such as red-teaming and large-scale feedback learning, which aim to make models both helpful and harmless. However, there is a tension between these two objectives, since harmlessness requires models to refuse to comply with unsafe prompts, and thus not be helpful. Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that some models may have struck a poor balance, so that even clearly safe prompts are refused if they use similar language to unsafe prompts or mention sensitive topics. In this paper, we introduce a new test suite called XSTest to identify such eXaggerated Safety behaviours in a systematic way. XSTest comprises 250 safe prompts across ten prompt types that well-calibrated models should not refuse to comply with, and 200 unsafe prompts as contrasts that models, for most applications, should refuse. We describe XSTest's creation and composition, and then use the test suite to highlight systematic failure modes in state-of-the-art language models as well as more general challenges in building safer language models.

Abstract of XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models (arXiv:2308.01263, CC0)
Made by Röttger et al. (Bocconi University and others) Released Aug 2023 Refusing harmful requests All tasks public Last in a system card Mar 2026 Last model added Mar 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.
16
Models scored in lab cards
19
System cards report it, from 8 labs

Cohere Command A leads with 1.10% among models released by Jan 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 Jan 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 Cohere Command A 1.10%
  2. 2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 1.70%
  3. 3 Claude 3.5 Haiku 2.00%
  4. 4 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) 4.30%
  5. 5 Claude 3 Opus 9.00%
  6. 6 Phi-4 Mini 20.8%
  7. 7 Phi-4-multimodal 26.4%
  8. 8 GPT-4.5 85%
  9. 9 o3-mini 88%
  10. 10 Olmo 3.1 32B Think 91.8%
  11. 11 o1 93.6%
  12. 12 Olmo 3 32B Think 93.9%
  13. 13 o1-mini 94.8%
  14. 14 DeepSeek-R1 95.3%
  15. 15 Falcon H1R 7B 96.4%
  16. 16 o1-preview 97.6%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Cohere Command A 1.10% Apr 2025 Model card
2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 1.70% Jun 2024 Model card
3 Claude 3.5 Haiku 2.00% Oct 2024 Model card
4 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) 4.30% Oct 2024 Model card
5 Claude 3 Opus 9.00% Mar 2024 Model card
6 Phi-4 Mini 20.8% Mar 2025 Model card
7 Phi-4-multimodal 26.4% Mar 2025 Model card
8 GPT-4.5 85% Feb 2025 Model card
9 o3-mini 88% Jan 2025 Model card
10 Olmo 3.1 32B Think 91.8% Dec 2025 Model card
11 o1 93.6% Dec 2024 Model card
12 Olmo 3 32B Think 93.9% Dec 2025 Model card
13 o1-mini 94.8% Sep 2024 Model card
14 DeepSeek-R1 95.3% Jan 2025 Model card
15 Falcon H1R 7B 96.4% Jan 2026 Model card
16 o1-preview 97.6% Sep 2024 Model card

3 models have held number one since its release in Aug 2023

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

Anthropic Cohere
Lab claims Not tested since Jan 2026

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% 2024 2025 2026 Cohere Command A Claude 3.5 Sonnet Claude 3 Opus 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Cohere Command A Claude 3 Opus

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.

19 system cards report it, from 8 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
21 Mar 2026 Seed1.8 model card XSTest, bar chart with no printed number (Figure 10) Safety
5 Jan 2026 Falcon H1R 7B technical report 96.4 XSTest safe rate by Llama-Guard-3-8B, CoT+Answer, 98.0 Answer Only, 87.07 CoT Only (Table 10) Safety
15 Dec 2025 Olmo 3 32B Think technical report 93.9 XSTest, refusal accuracy, Final Think 3.0 column (Table 54) Safety
15 Dec 2025 Olmo 3.1 32B Think technical report 91.8 XSTest, refusal accuracy, Final Think 3.1 column (Table 54) Safety
1 Apr 2025 Cohere Command A technical report 1.1 XSTest over-refusal, full 1.1 plus partial 0.0, lower is better (Table 17). Internal over-refusal set 7.1 Safety
3 Mar 2025 Phi-4-multimodal technical report 26.4 XSTest VPRR, refusal rate on valid prompts, lower is better. IPRR on inappropriate prompts 92% (Table 12) Safety
3 Mar 2025 Phi-4 Mini technical report 20.8 XSTest VPRR, refusal rate on valid prompts, lower is better. IPRR on inappropriate prompts 93.5% (Table 12) Safety
27 Feb 2025 GPT-4.5 system card 85 XSTest, not_overrefuse (Table 1) Safety
31 Jan 2025 o3-mini system card 88 XSTest, not_overrefuse (Table 1) Safety
20 Jan 2025 DeepSeek-R1 technical report 95.3 XSTest safety score, from HELM (Table 9) Safety
5 Dec 2024 o1 system card 93.6 XSTest, not_overrefuse, overall (Table 20, 0.94 in Table 1) Safety
22 Oct 2024 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) model card 4.3 XSTest, incorrect refusals, lower is better (Table 6) Safety
22 Oct 2024 Claude 3.5 Haiku model card 2 XSTest, incorrect refusals, lower is better (Table 6) Safety
12 Sep 2024 o1-preview system card 97.6 XSTest, not_overrefuse, overall (Table 1, Table 15) Safety
12 Sep 2024 o1-mini system card 94.8 XSTest, not_overrefuse, overall (Table 1, Table 15) Safety
20 Jun 2024 Claude 3.5 Sonnet model card 1.7 XSTest, incorrect refusals, lower is better (Table 4) Safety
4 Mar 2024 Claude 3 Sonnet model card XSTest, incorrect refusal rate, lower is better, log-scale chart without printed values (Figure 3) Safety
4 Mar 2024 Claude 3 Opus model card 9 XSTest, incorrect refusal rate, lower is better, 9% stated in text (5.4.1, Figure 3) Safety
4 Mar 2024 Claude 3 Haiku model card XSTest, incorrect refusal rate, lower is better, log-scale chart without printed values (Figure 3) 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%