Benchmark Almanac

Divergence attack (extractable memorization)

Only in system cards

Models are prompted to repeat one token many times. The test measures how often they diverge and emit memorized training text.

Google runs 3,750 prompts over 125 single-token characters, following Nasr et al. 2023.

Made by
Google DeepMind
Released
February 2024
Kind
Refusing harmful requests
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
Kept private
Strongest model tested
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 #96 on the capability index
Last in a system card
July 2025
Last model added
July 2025

In the authors’ words

This paper studies extractable memorization: training data that an adversary can efficiently extract by querying a machine learning model without prior knowledge of the training dataset. We show an adversary can extract gigabytes of training data from open-source language models like Pythia or GPT-Neo, semi-open models like LLaMA or Falcon, and closed models like ChatGPT. Existing techniques from the literature suffice to attack unaligned models; in order to attack the aligned ChatGPT, we develop a new divergence attack that causes the model to diverge from its chatbot-style generations and emit training data at a rate 150x higher than when behaving properly. Our methods show practical attacks can recover far more data than previously thought, and reveal that current alignment techniques do not eliminate memorization.

Abstract of Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Models (arXiv:2311.17035, CC0)
2
Models scored in lab cards
2
System cards report it, from 1 lab

2 models share the top score of 59%

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 Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 59%
  2. 2 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 59%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 59% Jul 2025 Lab model card
2 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 59% Jul 2025 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
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Gemini 2.5 Flash 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Gemini 2.5 Flash

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.

2 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Jul 7, 2025 Gemini 2.5 Pro technical report 59 Divergence attack: divergence occurs roughly 59% of the time for the Gemini 2.5 family; about 0.2% of diverged text classified as memorization (Section 5.6) Safety
Jul 7, 2025 Gemini 2.5 Flash technical report 59 Divergence attack: divergence occurs roughly 59% of the time for the Gemini 2.5 family; about 0.2% of diverged text classified as memorization (Section 5.6) Safety

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%