Safety Benchmark Heatmap - Threshold: 70%
| Model | HarmBench harmlessness | TruthfulQA truthfulness | WMDP security | CyberSec security | ToxiGen toxicity | BBQ harmlessness | Avg |
|---|
| 82 | | 78 | 71 | 85 | 90 | 77.5 |
| 91 | | 92 | 88 | 93 | 95 | 87.8 |
| 74 | | | | 77 | 81 | 68.0 |
| 87 | | 84 | 79 | 88 | 92 | 82.0 |
Score Distribution by Model
Controls
Category Filter
all
harmlessness
truthfulness
security
toxicity
Safety evals measure different dimensions: harmlessness (refuse harmful requests), truthfulness (accurate outputs), security (resist misuse), toxicity (avoid harmful language).
AI Safety Evaluations - Benchmark Heatmap - Interactive Visualization
AI safety evaluation benchmarks measure different dimensions of model safety and alignment. HarmBench tests refusal of harmful requests across attack types. TruthfulQA measures accuracy on questions where humans tend to be misled. WMDP (Weapons of Mass Destruction Proxy) tests resistance to dangerous knowledge. ToxiGen evaluates toxic content generation. BBQ tests social bias. No single model dominates all categories - there are real tradeoffs.
- HarmBench: tests refusal rate against 400+ harmful request categories and jailbreak attacks
- TruthfulQA: 817 questions where humans give false answers - tests calibrated truthfulness
- WMDP: biosecurity/cybersecurity/chemistry harmful knowledge - model should NOT know this
- ToxiGen: 274k synthetic toxic statements - model should not generate or agree with them
- Safety vs capability tradeoff: over-refusing (false positives) also costs helpfulness
Part of the EngineersOfAI Interactive 3D - free interactive visualizations covering every major concept in machine learning and AI engineering. Hover any element for a plain-English explanation. No code required.