First-Person Fairness evaluation
Tests whether a user's name (a demographic proxy) changes responses, using an LLM research assistant to detect harmful stereotypes.
Paper is public. The evaluation set is internal to OpenAI.
- Made by
- OpenAI
- Released
- October 2024
- Kind
- Bias, fairness and politics
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- Kept private
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.6 Sol #13 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- July 2026
- Last model added
- July 2026
In the authors’ words
Evaluating chatbot fairness is crucial given their rapid proliferation, yet typical chatbot tasks (e.g., resume writing, entertainment) diverge from the institutional decision-making tasks (e.g., resume screening) which have traditionally been central to discussion of algorithmic fairness. The open-ended nature and diverse use-cases of chatbots necessitate novel methods for bias assessment. This paper addresses these challenges by introducing a scalable counterfactual approach to evaluate "first-person fairness," meaning fairness toward chatbot users based on demographic characteristics. Our method employs a Language Model as a Research Assistant (LMRA) to yield quantitative measures of harmful stereotypes and qualitative analyses of demographic differences in chatbot responses. We apply this approach to assess biases in six of our language models across millions of interactions, covering sixty-six tasks in nine domains and spanning two genders and four races. Independent human annotations corroborate the LMRA-generated bias evaluations. This study represents the first large-scale fairness evaluation based on real-world chat data. We highlight that post-training reinforcement learning techniques significantly mitigate these biases. This evaluation provides a practical methodology for ongoing bias monitoring and mitigation.
ChatGPT agent leads with 0.40% among models released by July 2026
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.
The newest model with a score here came out in July 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 13 more
- 1 ChatGPT agent 0.40%
- 2 o3 0.60%
- 3 GPT-5.6 Luna 0.61%
- 4 o4-mini 0.70%
- 5 GPT-5.4 0.88%
- 6 GPT-5.6 Terra 0.88%
- 7 GPT-5.6 Sol 0.98%
- 8 GPT-5.2 1.00%
- 9 GPT-5.5 Instant 1.01%
- 10 GPT-5.5 1.12%
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ChatGPT agent | 0.40% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | o3 | 0.60% | Apr 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | GPT-5.6 Luna | 0.61% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | o4-mini | 0.70% | Apr 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | GPT-5.4 | 0.88% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | GPT-5.6 Terra | 0.88% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 0.98% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | GPT-5.2 | 1.00% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | GPT-5.5 Instant | 1.01% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 10 | GPT-5.5 | 1.12% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card |
2 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in October 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Labs’ model cards
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
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.
13 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 9, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Terra system card | 0.88 | First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) | Bias |
| Jul 9, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Sol system card | 0.98 | First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) | Bias |
| Jul 9, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Luna system card | 0.61 | First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) | Bias |
| Jun 25, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Terra system card | 0.88 | First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) | Bias |
| Jun 25, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Sol system card | 0.98 | First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) | Bias |
| Jun 25, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Luna system card | 0.61 | First-Person Fairness Evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better, printed chart label (Figure 21, 8.1) | Bias |
| May 4, 2026 | GPT-5.5 Instant system card | 1.01 | First-person fairness evaluation, harm_overall 0.0101, lower is better (Table 6) (fraction converted to percent) | Bias |
| Apr 23, 2026 | GPT-5.5 system card | 1.12 | First-person fairness evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better (Table 9) (fraction converted to percent) | Bias |
| Mar 5, 2026 | GPT-5.4 system card | 0.88 | First-person fairness evaluation, harm_overall, lower is better (Table 10) (fraction converted to percent) | Bias |
| Dec 11, 2025 | GPT-5.2 system card addendum | 0.997 | First-person fairness evaluation, harm_overall 0.00997, gpt-5.2-thinking, lower is better (Table 9) | Bias |
| Jul 17, 2025 | ChatGPT agent system card | 0.4 | First-person fairness, net_bias 0.004 without tools, 0.003 with tools, lower is better (Table 8) | Bias |
| Apr 16, 2025 | o4-mini system card | 0.7 | First-person fairness evaluation, net_bias 0.007 (Table 8) | Bias |
| Apr 16, 2025 | o3 system card | 0.6 | First-person fairness evaluation, net_bias 0.006 (Table 8) | Bias |
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%