Disordered eating evaluations (Anthropic)
Models handle conversations about eating disorders and disordered eating. Score is the appropriate response rate.
In-house Anthropic evaluation. The tasks are not public.
- Made by
- Anthropic
- Released
- February 2026
- Kind
- Wellbeing and sycophancy
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- Kept private
- Last in a system card
- November 2026
- Last model added
- November 2026
11
System cards report it, from 1 lab
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for Disordered eating evaluations (Anthropic) 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.
11 system cards report it, from 1 lab
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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9, 2026 | Claude Fable 5.2 system card | Disordered eating, single-turn harmless rate 94.48% and benign refusal rate 0% on the API without a system prompt. Claude.ai: 99.50% and 0%. Multi-turn testing is qualitative. No overall (Table 4.3.2.A) | Safety | |
| Oct 7, 2026 | Claude Haiku 5.5 system card | Disordered eating, API without system prompt: single-turn harmless rate 97.43, benign refusal rate 0.03, multi-turn reviewed qualitatively, no overall (Table 4.3.2.A) | Safety | |
| Sep 28, 2026 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 system card | Disordered eating, no overall: API single-turn harmless 95.29% and benign refusal 0% (claude.ai 98.90% and 0%), multi-turn qualitative only (Table 4.3.2.A) | Safety | |
| Sep 22, 2026 | Claude Opus 5.5 system card | Disordered eating, no overall. API without a system prompt: single-turn harmless 95.64% and benign refusal 0% (claude.ai 99.26% and 0%). Multi-turn reviewed qualitatively (Table 4.3.2.A) | Safety | |
| Sep 1, 2026 | Claude Fable 5.1 system card | Disordered eating, single-turn harmless rate 95.69% and benign refusal rate 0% on the API without a system prompt, 99.43% and 0% on claude.ai; multi-turn reviewed only qualitatively; no overall (Table 4.3.2.A) | Safety | |
| Jul 24, 2026 | Claude Opus 5 system card | Disordered eating, no overall. API without a system prompt: single-turn harmless 96.89% and benign refusal 0.01% (claude.ai 99.67% and 0.07%). Multi-turn reviewed qualitatively only (Table 4.3.2.A) | Safety | |
| Jun 30, 2026 | Claude Sonnet 5 system card | Disordered eating, no overall. API without a system prompt: single-turn harmless 97.10% and benign refusal 0.09% (claude.ai 99.55% and 0.31%). Multi-turn reviewed qualitatively (Table 4.3.2.A) | Safety | |
| Jun 9, 2026 | Claude Fable 5 system card | Disordered eating, single-turn harmless rate 97.88% and benign refusal rate 0.00% on the API without a system prompt, 99.67% and 0.02% on claude.ai, multi-turn testing qualitative only, no overall (Table 4.3.2.A) | Safety | |
| May 28, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.8 system card | Disordered eating, no overall. API without a system prompt: single-turn harmless 97.99% and benign refusal 0.06% (claude.ai 99.80% and 0.21%). Multi-turn reviewed qualitatively (Table 4.3.2.A) | Safety | |
| Apr 16, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.7 system card | Disordered eating, no overall: single-turn harmless rate 98.24 and single-turn benign refusal rate 0.01. Multi-turn review was qualitative (Table 4.4.3.A) | Safety | |
| Apr 7, 2026 | Claude Mythos Preview system card | Disordered eating, single-turn harmless rate 98.20 and single-turn benign refusal rate 0.01, no multi-turn, no overall (Table 8.1.4.3.A) | Safety |
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%