MLCommons AILuminate Jailbreak
Models answer hazard prompts with and without taxonomy-based jailbreak attacks. The Resilience Gap is the drop in safety score under attack.
White papers for v0.5.1 (2025-12) and v0.7.1 (2026-02) came first. v1.0 used 264 seed prompts in 11 hazard categories on eight open-weight systems. The page cites 39 models tested.
- Made by
- MLCommons
- Released
- December 2025
- Kind
- Jailbreaks and prompt injection
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- Kept private
In the authors’ words
Modern AI systems are designed to refuse hazardous requests. A jailbreak is a prompt crafted to bypass those safeguards and elicit outputs that the system would normally refuse to provide. The MLCommons Jailbreak Benchmark v1.0 provides an end-to-end methodology for evaluating the robustness of large language models to single-turn, text-based jailbreak attacks. It combines criteria-driven system and attack selection, paired baseline and adversarial evaluation, human annotation, automated evaluator calibration, scoring, grading, and risk-calibrated disclosure within a single benchmarking pipeline. The benchmark evaluates eight open-weight systems using 264 seed prompts spanning eleven hazard categories and representative attacks drawn from the MLCommons Jailbreak Taxonomy. Responses are assessed using the AILuminate Assessment Standard v1.4, and robustness is measured through the Resilience Gap: the change in safety performance between baseline and adversarial conditions. Across all evaluated systems and attacks, the unsafe-response rate increased from 11.08% under baseline conditions to 18.65% under jailbreak conditions, producing an average Resilience Gap of 7.57%. Accessible systems showed a larger mean gap, while attack effectiveness varied substantially across attack categories and hazards. The benchmark also examines evaluator reliability and sources of measurement error. Beyond reporting results, Jailbreak Benchmark v1.0 establishes a reproducible methodological foundation for comparative jailbreak evaluation and for future expansion across systems, attacks, hazards, and evaluation methods.
De-Identified System 1 tops the leaderboard with 8.87%
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
- 1 De-Identified System 1 0.5 en-US official ensemble 8.87%
- 2 De-Identified System 2 0.5 en-US official ensemble 15.1%
- 3 De-Identified System 8 0.5 en-US official ensemble 20.6%
- 4 De-Identified System 13 0.5 en-US official ensemble 23.3%
- 5 De-Identified System 11 0.5 en-US official ensemble 24.6%
- 6 De-Identified System 4 0.5 en-US official ensemble 25.8%
- 7 De-Identified System 3 0.5 en-US official ensemble 25.9%
- 8 De-Identified System 7 0.5 en-US official ensemble 26.8%
- 9 De-Identified System 22 0.5 en-US official ensemble 27.4%
- 10 De-Identified System 9 0.5 en-US official ensemble 27.8%
- 11 De-Identified System 10 0.5 en-US official ensemble 28.8%
- 12 De-Identified System 20 0.5 en-US official ensemble 29.4%
- 13 De-Identified System 15 0.5 en-US official ensemble 34.1%
- 14 De-Identified System 6 0.5 en-US official ensemble 34.8%
- 15 De-Identified System 25 0.5 en-US official ensemble 37.7%
- 16 De-Identified System 23 0.5 en-US official ensemble 38.1%
- 17 De-Identified System 14 0.5 en-US official ensemble 38.8%
- 18 De-Identified System 30 0.5 en-US official ensemble 38.9%
- 19 De-Identified System 16 0.5 en-US official ensemble 38.9%
- 20 De-Identified System 17 0.5 en-US official ensemble 40.8%
- 21 De-Identified System 18 0.5 en-US official ensemble 40.9%
- 22 De-Identified System 21 0.5 en-US official ensemble 41.6%
- 23 De-Identified System 32 0.5 en-US official ensemble 43.1%
- 24 De-Identified System 33 0.5 en-US official ensemble 44.7%
- 25 De-Identified System 26 0.5 en-US official ensemble 47.9%
- 26 De-Identified System 38 0.5 en-US official ensemble 49.4%
- 27 De-Identified System 29 0.5 en-US official ensemble 49.8%
- 28 De-Identified System 28 0.5 en-US official ensemble 50%
- 29 De-Identified System 27 0.5 en-US official ensemble 50.6%
- 30 De-Identified System 5 0.5 en-US official ensemble 50.6%
- 31 De-Identified System 35 0.5 en-US official ensemble 50.7%
- 32 De-Identified System 39 0.5 en-US official ensemble 51.5%
- 33 De-Identified System 34 0.5 en-US official ensemble 52%
- 34 De-Identified System 19 0.5 en-US official ensemble 53.1%
- 35 De-Identified System 12 0.5 en-US official ensemble 54.1%
- 36 De-Identified System 24 0.5 en-US official ensemble 57.7%
- 37 De-Identified System 36 0.5 en-US official ensemble 58.5%
- 38 De-Identified System 37 0.5 en-US official ensemble 58.7%
- 39 De-Identified System 31 0.5 en-US official ensemble 65.5%
Source: Official MLCommons AILuminate Jailbreak leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | De-Identified System 1 | 8.87% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | De-Identified System 2 | 15.1% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | De-Identified System 8 | 20.6% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | De-Identified System 13 | 23.3% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | De-Identified System 11 | 24.6% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | De-Identified System 4 | 25.8% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | De-Identified System 3 | 25.9% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | De-Identified System 7 | 26.8% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | De-Identified System 22 | 27.4% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | De-Identified System 9 | 27.8% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | De-Identified System 10 | 28.8% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | De-Identified System 20 | 29.4% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | De-Identified System 15 | 34.1% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | De-Identified System 6 | 34.8% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | De-Identified System 25 | 37.7% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | De-Identified System 23 | 38.1% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | De-Identified System 14 | 38.8% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | De-Identified System 30 | 38.9% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | De-Identified System 16 | 38.9% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | De-Identified System 17 | 40.8% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | De-Identified System 18 | 40.9% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | De-Identified System 21 | 41.6% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | De-Identified System 32 | 43.1% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | De-Identified System 33 | 44.7% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | De-Identified System 26 | 47.9% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | De-Identified System 38 | 49.4% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | De-Identified System 29 | 49.8% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | De-Identified System 28 | 50% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | De-Identified System 27 | 50.6% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | De-Identified System 5 | 50.6% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | De-Identified System 35 | 50.7% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 32 | De-Identified System 39 | 51.5% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 33 | De-Identified System 34 | 52% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 34 | De-Identified System 19 | 53.1% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 35 | De-Identified System 12 | 54.1% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 36 | De-Identified System 24 | 57.7% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 37 | De-Identified System 36 | 58.5% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 38 | De-Identified System 37 | 58.7% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard | |
| 39 | De-Identified System 31 | 65.5% | 0.5 en-US official ensemble | Official leaderboard |
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More 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%
- 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.
Gemini 4 Carbon 0%
- DistressBench In use Models reply as a chatbot to 718 simulated users in psychological crisis, in single-turn and multi-turn chats. Three judge models score replies against clinician-written rubrics.
Muse Spark 1.2 88.4%
- Lakera B3 (Backbone Breaker Benchmark) In use Crowdsourced prompt-injection attacks hit backbone LLMs inside agent threat snapshots at three defense levels. The score is attack resistance, 100 minus the board's vulnerability percentage. Claude Opus 4.5 89%
- IHEval In use Models face conflicts between system, user and tool instructions. Reports a composite score for following the higher-priority instruction. GPT-4o 70%