Benchmark Almanac

BBQ (Bias Benchmark for QA)

DeepSeek-R1 96.6% leads since January 2025
Only in system cards

Ambiguous and disambiguated questions probing social stereotypes across nine attributes. Reports accuracy and bias scores.

Made by
NYU MLL
Released
October 2021
Kind
Bias, fairness and politics
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Fable 5.2 #1 on the capability index
Last in a system card
November 2026
Last model added
November 2026

In the authors’ words

It is well documented that NLP models learn social biases, but little work has been done on how these biases manifest in model outputs for applied tasks like question answering (QA). We introduce the Bias Benchmark for QA (BBQ), a dataset of question sets constructed by the authors that highlight attested social biases against people belonging to protected classes along nine social dimensions relevant for U.S. English-speaking contexts. Our task evaluates model responses at two levels: (i) given an under-informative context, we test how strongly responses reflect social biases, and (ii) given an adequately informative context, we test whether the model's biases override a correct answer choice. We find that models often rely on stereotypes when the context is under-informative, meaning the model's outputs consistently reproduce harmful biases in this setting. Though models are more accurate when the context provides an informative answer, they still rely on stereotypes and average up to 3.4 percentage points higher accuracy when the correct answer aligns with a social bias than when it conflicts, with this difference widening to over 5 points on examples targeting gender for most models tested.

Abstract of BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering (arXiv:2110.08193, CC0)
25
Models scored in lab cards
45
System cards report it, from 7 labs

DeepSeek-R1 leads with 96.6%

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 DeepSeek-R1 96.6%
  2. 2 Claude Opus 4 91.1%
  3. 3 Claude Opus 4.6 90.9%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.1 90.7%
  5. 5 Claude Fable 5.1 89.9%
  6. 6 Claude Fable 5.2 89.7%
  7. 7 Claude Opus 5.5 89.7%
  8. 8 Claude Opus 4.5 88.7%
  9. 9 Olmo 3 32B Think 88.2%
  10. 10 Claude Sonnet 4.6 88.1%
  11. 11 Claude Sonnet 4 86.3%
  12. 12 Olmo 3.1 32B Think 85.5%
  13. 13 Claude Mythos Preview 84.6%
  14. 14 Claude Fable 5 84.5%
  15. 15 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 84%
  16. 16 Claude Sonnet 4.5 82.2%
  17. 17 Claude Opus 5 81.6%
  18. 18 Claude Opus 4.7 81.3%
  19. 19 Claude Sonnet 5.5 80%
  20. 20 Claude Sonnet 5 72.4%
  21. 21 Claude Opus 4.8 72.1%
  22. 22 Claude Haiku 4.5 71.2%
  23. 23 Apertus 70B 67.4%
  24. 24 Mixtral 8x7B 56%
  25. 25 Claude Haiku 5.5 55.6%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 DeepSeek-R1 96.6% Jan 2025 Lab model card
2 Claude Opus 4 91.1% May 2025 Lab model card
3 Claude Opus 4.6 90.9% Feb 2026 Lab model card
4 Claude Opus 4.1 90.7% Aug 2025 Lab model card
5 Claude Fable 5.1 89.9% Sep 2026 Lab model card
6 Claude Fable 5.2 89.7% Nov 2026 Lab model card
7 Claude Opus 5.5 89.7% Sep 2026 Lab model card
8 Claude Opus 4.5 88.7% Nov 2025 Lab model card
9 Olmo 3 32B Think 88.2% Dec 2025 Lab model card
10 Claude Sonnet 4.6 88.1% Feb 2026 Lab model card
11 Claude Sonnet 4 86.3% May 2025 Lab model card
12 Olmo 3.1 32B Think 85.5% Dec 2025 Lab model card
13 Claude Mythos Preview 84.6% Apr 2026 Lab model card
14 Claude Fable 5 84.5% Jun 2026 Lab model card
15 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 84% Feb 2025 Lab model card
16 Claude Sonnet 4.5 82.2% Sep 2025 Lab model card
17 Claude Opus 5 81.6% Jul 2026 Lab model card
18 Claude Opus 4.7 81.3% Apr 2026 Lab model card
19 Claude Sonnet 5.5 80% Sep 2026 Lab model card
20 Claude Sonnet 5 72.4% Jun 2026 Lab model card
21 Claude Opus 4.8 72.1% May 2026 Lab model card
22 Claude Haiku 4.5 71.2% Oct 2025 Lab model card
23 Apertus 70B 67.4% Sep 2025 Lab model card
24 Mixtral 8x7B 56% Jan 2024 Lab model card
25 Claude Haiku 5.5 55.6% Oct 2026 Lab model card

2 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since 2023

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

Mistral AI DeepSeek
Lab claims Passed 85% in Jan 2025, by DeepSeek-R1
DeepSeek-R1 96.6%

Source: Labs’ model cards

DeepSeek’s own number for DeepSeek-R1 passed 85% in January 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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) DeepSeek-R1 Mixtral 8x7B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) DeepSeek-R1 Mixtral 8x7B

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

45 system cards report it, from 7 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
Nov 9, 2026 Claude Fable 5.2 system card 89.7 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, thinking enabled. Ambiguous accuracy >99.99%, disambiguated bias -0.65%, ambiguous bias 0.00% (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) Bias
Oct 7, 2026 Claude Haiku 5.5 system card 55.6 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt. Ambiguous accuracy 99.65, disambiguated bias 1.67, ambiguous bias 0.27 (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) Bias
Sep 28, 2026 Claude Sonnet 5.5 system card 80 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, ambiguous accuracy 99.97%, bias -0.75% disambiguated and 0.03% ambiguous, no system prompt (Tables 4.4.2.A and B) Bias
Sep 22, 2026 Claude Opus 5.5 system card 89.7 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, thinking on. Ambiguous accuracy 99.99%, bias -0.93% disambiguated and 0.01% ambiguous (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) Bias
Sep 1, 2026 Claude Fable 5.1 system card 89.9 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, thinking on, row labeled Mythos 5.1; ambiguous accuracy 100%, disambiguated bias -0.91%, ambiguous bias 0.03% (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) Bias
Jul 24, 2026 Claude Opus 5 system card 81.6 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, thinking off. Ambiguous accuracy 100%, bias -2.00% disambiguated and 0.02% ambiguous (Tables 4.4.2.A and B) Bias
Jun 30, 2026 Claude Sonnet 5 system card 72.4 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, thinking off. Ambiguous accuracy 98.6%, bias 1.93% disambiguated and 0.52% ambiguous (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) Bias
Jun 9, 2026 Claude Fable 5 system card 84.5 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no system prompt, row labeled Mythos 5 (the card does not report Fable 5 separately because its added safeguards are not relevant here); ambiguous accuracy 99.9%, disambiguated bias -1.80%, ambiguous bias 0.10% (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) Bias
May 28, 2026 Claude Opus 4.8 system card 72.1 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, thinking off, no system prompt. Ambiguous accuracy 99.9%, bias -1.37% disambiguated and 0.07% ambiguous (Tables 4.4.2.A and 4.4.2.B) Bias
Apr 16, 2026 Claude Opus 4.7 system card 81.3 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, thinking disabled. Ambiguous accuracy 99.9, disambiguated bias -1.68, ambiguous bias 0.04 (Tables 4.5.2.A and 4.5.2.B) Bias
Apr 7, 2026 Claude Mythos Preview system card 84.6 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, no thinking; ambiguous accuracy 100, disambiguated bias -1.61, ambiguous bias 0.01 (Tables 8.2.2.A and 8.2.2.B) Bias
Feb 17, 2026 Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card 88.1 BBQ disambiguated accuracy; ambiguous accuracy 97.5, disambiguated bias -0.67, ambiguous bias 1.41 (Tables 3.5.2.A and 3.5.2.B) Bias
Feb 5, 2026 Claude Opus 4.6 system card 90.9 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, standard thinking; ambiguous accuracy 99.7, disambiguated bias -0.73, ambiguous bias 0.14 (Tables 3.5.2.A and 3.5.2.B) Bias
Dec 15, 2025 Olmo 3 32B Think technical report 88.2 BBQ Accuracy 88.2, Bias Ambig. 9.2, Bias Disambig. 1.1, Final Think 3.0 column (Table 54) Bias
Dec 15, 2025 Olmo 3.1 32B Think technical report 85.5 BBQ Accuracy 85.5, Bias Ambig. 12.3, Bias Disambig. -0.2, Final Think 3.1 column (Table 54) Bias
Nov 24, 2025 Claude Opus 4.5 system card 88.7 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, standard thinking (Table 3.5.2.B; ambiguous accuracy 99.7%, disambiguated bias -0.64%, ambiguous bias 0.26% in Table 3.5.2.A) Bias
Oct 15, 2025 Claude Haiku 4.5 system card 71.2 BBQ disambiguated accuracy, default mode; ambiguous accuracy 98.0, disambiguated bias 0.54, ambiguous bias 1.37 (Tables 2.5.2.A and 2.5.2.B) Bias
Sep 29, 2025 Claude Sonnet 4.5 system card 82.2 BBQ disambiguated accuracy 82.2%, standard thinking. Ambiguous accuracy 99.7%, disambiguated bias -2.21%, ambiguous bias 0.25% (Tables 2.5.2.A and 2.5.2.B) Bias
Sep 17, 2025 Apertus 70B technical report 67.4 BBQ accuracy (Table 26) Bias
Aug 7, 2025 GPT-5 system card BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous and disambiguated questions with and without web search, no overall score (Table 12) Bias
Aug 5, 2025 gpt-oss-20b model card BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous 0.79 and disambiguated 0.89 questions, no overall score (Table 10) Bias
Aug 5, 2025 gpt-oss-120b model card BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous 0.87 and disambiguated 0.9 questions, no overall score (Table 10) Bias
Aug 5, 2025 Claude Opus 4.1 system card addendum 90.7 BBQ disambiguated accuracy 90.7%, standard thinking. Ambiguous accuracy 99.8%, disambiguated bias -0.51%, ambiguous bias 0.20% (Tables 2.3.A and 2.3.B) Bias
Jul 17, 2025 ChatGPT agent system card BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous questions 0.91 and disambiguated questions 0.79, no overall score (Table 7) Bias
May 22, 2025 Claude Sonnet 4 system card 86.3 BBQ disambiguated accuracy 86.3%, standard thinking. Ambiguous accuracy 99.4%, disambiguated bias -1.16%, ambiguous bias 0.61% (Tables 2.6.A and 2.6.B) Bias
May 22, 2025 Claude Opus 4 system card 91.1 BBQ disambiguated accuracy 91.1%, standard thinking. Ambiguous accuracy 99.8%, disambiguated bias -0.60%, ambiguous bias 0.21% (Tables 2.6.A and 2.6.B) Bias
Apr 16, 2025 o4-mini system card BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous and unambiguous questions and P(not stereotyping), no overall score (Table 7) Bias
Apr 16, 2025 o3 system card BBQ evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous and unambiguous questions and P(not stereotyping), no overall score (Table 7) Bias
Feb 27, 2025 GPT-4.5 system card BBQ Evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous and unambiguous questions and P(not-stereotype | not unknown), no overall score (Table 5) Bias
Feb 25, 2025 OpenAI deep research system card BBQ, accuracy on ambiguous questions 0.63 and unambiguous questions 0.95, P(not stereotyping | ambiguous, not unknown) 0.34, no overall score (Table 10) Bias
Feb 24, 2025 Claude 3.7 Sonnet system card 84 BBQ disambiguated accuracy 84.0%, standard thinking. Ambiguous accuracy 98.8%, disambiguated bias -0.98%, ambiguous bias 0.89% (Tables 1 and 2). The prose in 3.2 swaps the ambiguous and disambiguated labels Bias
Jan 31, 2025 o3-mini system card BBQ Evaluation, accuracy on ambiguous and unambiguous questions and P(not stereotyping), no overall score (Table 4) Bias
Jan 20, 2025 DeepSeek-R1 technical report 96.6 BBQ safety score, from HELM (Table 9) Bias
Dec 5, 2024 o1 system card BBQ Evaluation, ambiguous and unambiguous accuracy and P(not-stereotype | not unknown), no overall score (Table 4) Bias
Sep 12, 2024 o1-preview system card BBQ Evaluation, ambiguous and unambiguous accuracy and P(not-stereotype | not unknown), no overall score (Table 3) Bias
Sep 12, 2024 o1-mini system card BBQ Evaluation, ambiguous and unambiguous accuracy and P(not-stereotype | not unknown), no overall score (Table 3) Bias
Jul 31, 2024 Gemma 2 9B technical report BBQ, 4-shot top-1, IT, two settings with no overall score: Ambig 88.58, Disambig 82.67 (Table 18) Bias
Jul 31, 2024 Gemma 2 27B technical report BBQ, 4-shot top-1, IT, two settings with no overall score: Ambig 85.99, Disambig 86.94 (Table 18) Bias
Mar 13, 2024 Gemma 7B technical report BBQ, IT, two settings with no overall score: Ambig 1-shot top-1 92.54, Disambig top-1 71.99 (Table 8) Bias
Mar 13, 2024 Gemma 2B technical report BBQ, IT, two settings with no overall score: Ambig 1-shot top-1 62.58, Disambig top-1 54.62 (Table 8) Bias
Mar 4, 2024 Claude 3 Sonnet model card BBQ, bias scores in ambiguous context and accuracy in disambiguated context per category, chart without printed values (7.4, Figure 21) Bias
Mar 4, 2024 Claude 3 Opus model card BBQ, bias scores in ambiguous context and accuracy in disambiguated context per category, chart without printed values (7.4, Figure 21) Bias
Mar 4, 2024 Claude 3 Haiku model card BBQ, bias scores in ambiguous context and accuracy in disambiguated context per category, chart without printed values (7.4, Figure 21) Bias
Jan 8, 2024 Mixtral 8x7B technical report 56 BBQ accuracy (Figure 5 table) Bias
Jul 11, 2023 Claude 2 model card BBQ, bias scores in ambiguous context and accuracy in disambiguated context per category, charts without printed values (3.2, Figures 2 and 3) Bias

More in Safety and alignment

All 465 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%