Benchmark Almanac

Discrim-Eval

Only in system cards

Models make yes or no decisions in templated scenarios that vary age, gender and race. Scored by mixed effects model coefficients.

OpenAI reports normalized coefficients for explicit and implicit demographic mentions. Lower means less bias.

Released
December 2023
Kind
Bias, fairness and politics
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Last in a system card
January 2025
Last model added
January 2025

In the authors’ words

As language models (LMs) advance, interest is growing in applying them to high-stakes societal decisions, such as determining financing or housing eligibility. However, their potential for discrimination in such contexts raises ethical concerns, motivating the need for better methods to evaluate these risks. We present a method for proactively evaluating the potential discriminatory impact of LMs in a wide range of use cases, including hypothetical use cases where they have not yet been deployed. Specifically, we use an LM to generate a wide array of potential prompts that decision-makers may input into an LM, spanning 70 diverse decision scenarios across society, and systematically vary the demographic information in each prompt. Applying this methodology reveals patterns of both positive and negative discrimination in the Claude 2.0 model in select settings when no interventions are applied. While we do not endorse or permit the use of language models to make automated decisions for the high-risk use cases we study, we demonstrate techniques to significantly decrease both positive and negative discrimination through careful prompt engineering, providing pathways toward safer deployment in use cases where they may be appropriate. Our work enables developers and policymakers to anticipate, measure, and address discrimination as language model capabilities and applications continue to expand. We release our dataset and prompts at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/discrim-eval

Abstract of Evaluating and Mitigating Discrimination in Language Model Decisions (arXiv:2312.03689, CC0)
7
System cards report it, from 2 labs

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for Discrim-Eval yet.

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 2 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
Jan 31, 2025 o3-mini system card Discrimination Evaluation Scores, explicit and implicit discrimination overall coefficients, no single overall score (Table 18, Appendix 8.2) Bias
Dec 5, 2024 o1 system card Discrimination Evaluation Scores, explicit and implicit overall average coefficients, no single overall score (Table 25, 8.4) Bias
Sep 12, 2024 o1-preview system card Discrimination Evaluation Scores, explicit and implicit overall average coefficients, no single overall score (Table 18, 8.6) Bias
Sep 12, 2024 o1-mini system card Discrimination Evaluation Scores, explicit and implicit overall average coefficients, no single overall score (Table 18, 8.6) Bias
Mar 4, 2024 Claude 3 Sonnet model card Discrimination score per demographic group and average magnitude, chart without printed values (7.3.1, Figure 19) Bias
Mar 4, 2024 Claude 3 Opus model card Discrimination score per demographic group and average magnitude, chart without printed values (7.3.1, Figure 19) Bias
Mar 4, 2024 Claude 3 Haiku model card Discrimination score per demographic group and average magnitude, chart without printed values (7.3.1, Figure 20) 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%