Benchmark Almanac

BOLD

Only in system cards

Models continue 23,679 English Wikipedia prompts about professions, gender, race, religion and politics. Classifiers score sentiment, toxicity and polarity per group.

Results are given per group, usually as mean and spread of sentiment.

Made by
Amazon
Released
January 2021
Kind
Bias, fairness and politics
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Gemma 7B #210 on the capability index
Last in a system card
March 2024
Last model added
March 2024

In the authors’ words

Recent advances in deep learning techniques have enabled machines to generate cohesive open-ended text when prompted with a sequence of words as context. While these models now empower many downstream applications from conversation bots to automatic storytelling, they have been shown to generate texts that exhibit social biases. To systematically study and benchmark social biases in open-ended language generation, we introduce the Bias in Open-Ended Language Generation Dataset (BOLD), a large-scale dataset that consists of 23,679 English text generation prompts for bias benchmarking across five domains: profession, gender, race, religion, and political ideology. We also propose new automated metrics for toxicity, psycholinguistic norms, and text gender polarity to measure social biases in open-ended text generation from multiple angles. An examination of text generated from three popular language models reveals that the majority of these models exhibit a larger social bias than human-written Wikipedia text across all domains. With these results we highlight the need to benchmark biases in open-ended language generation and caution users of language generation models on downstream tasks to be cognizant of these embedded prejudices.

Abstract of BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generation (arXiv:2101.11718, CC0)
2
Models scored in lab cards
7
System cards report it, from 3 labs

Gemma 7B leads with 49.1

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 Gemma 7B 49.1
  2. 2 Gemma 2B 45.6

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemma 7B 49.1 Mar 2024 Lab model card
2 Gemma 2B 45.6 Mar 2024 Lab 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
45.0 46.0 47.0 48.0 49.0 50.0 2024 45.0 46.0 47.0 48.0 49.0 50.0 2024

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.

7 system cards report it, from 3 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
Mar 13, 2024 Gemma 7B technical report 49.1 BOLD, IT (Table 8) Bias
Mar 13, 2024 Gemma 2B technical report 45.6 BOLD, IT (Table 8) Bias
Jan 8, 2024 Mixtral 8x7B technical report BOLD sentiment score (avg ± std) for gender, profession, religious_ideology, political_ideology, race; no overall (Figure 5 table) Bias
Jul 19, 2023 Llama 2-7B technical report BOLD mean sentiment per demographic group across race, gender, religion, politics and profession, pretrained and Llama 2-Chat, no overall (Tables 46 to 50) Bias
Jul 19, 2023 Llama 2-70B technical report BOLD mean sentiment per demographic group across race, gender, religion, politics and profession, pretrained and Llama 2-Chat, no overall (Tables 46 to 50) Bias
Jul 19, 2023 Llama 2-34B technical report BOLD mean sentiment per demographic group across race, gender, religion, politics and profession, pretrained and Llama 2-Chat, no overall (Tables 46 to 50) Bias
Jul 19, 2023 Llama 2-13B technical report BOLD mean sentiment per demographic group across race, gender, religion, politics and profession, pretrained and Llama 2-Chat, no overall (Tables 46 to 50) 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%