WildGuardTest
Models classify whether user prompts are harmful, whether responses are harmful, and whether responses refuse, across 13 risk categories. Scored by F1.
The test split of WildGuardMix. Artificial Analysis uses it in its Decision Index.
- Made by
- Allen Institute for AI
- Released
- June 2024
- Kind
- Refusing harmful requests
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Multiple choice
- Tasks
- All public
- Last in a system card
- December 2025
- Last model added
- December 2025
In the authors’ words
We introduce WildGuard – an open, light-weight moderation tool for LLM safety that achieves three goals: (1) identifying malicious intent in user prompts, (2) detecting safety risks of model responses, and (3) determining model refusal rate. Together, WildGuard serves the increasing needs for automatic safety moderation and evaluation of LLM interactions, providing a one-stop tool with enhanced accuracy and broad coverage across 13 risk categories. While existing open moderation tools such as Llama-Guard2 score reasonably well in classifying straightforward model interactions, they lag far behind a prompted GPT-4, especially in identifying adversarial jailbreaks and in evaluating models' refusals, a key measure for evaluating safety behaviors in model responses. To address these challenges, we construct WildGuardMix, a large-scale and carefully balanced multi-task safety moderation dataset with 92K labeled examples that cover vanilla (direct) prompts and adversarial jailbreaks, paired with various refusal and compliance responses. WildGuardMix is a combination of WildGuardTrain, the training data of WildGuard, and WildGuardTest, a high-quality human-annotated moderation test set with 5K labeled items covering broad risk scenarios. Through extensive evaluations on WildGuardTest and ten existing public benchmarks, we show that WildGuard establishes state-of-the-art performance in open-source safety moderation across all the three tasks compared to ten strong existing open-source moderation models (e.g., up to 26.4% improvement on refusal detection). Importantly, WildGuard matches and sometimes exceeds GPT-4 performance (e.g., up to 3.9% improvement on prompt harmfulness identification). WildGuard serves as a highly effective safety moderator in an LLM interface, reducing the success rate of jailbreak attacks from 79.8% to 2.4%.
Olmo 3.1 32B Think leads with 96.9% among models released by December 2025
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 December 2025, 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 16 more
- 1
Olmo 3.1 32B Think 96.9%
- 2
Olmo 3 32B Think 89.4%
- 3
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview 84.9%
- 4
Nova 2 Lite 84.7%
- 5
Nova 2 Omni Preview 84.1%
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 96.9% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 89.4% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 84.9% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 84.7% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 84.1% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card |
2 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in June 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Labs’ model cards
Ai2’s own number for Olmo 3.1 32B Think passed 85% in December 2025
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.
5 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 15, 2025 | | 89.4 | WildGuard-Test, 749 adversarial prompts, Final Think 3.0 column (Table 54) | Safety |
| Dec 15, 2025 | | 96.9 | WildGuard-Test, 749 adversarial prompts, Final Think 3.1 column (Table 54) | Safety |
| Dec 2, 2025 | | 84.1 | Wildguard F1-score, content moderation classification, non-reasoning mode (Table 14) | Safety |
| Dec 2, 2025 | | 84.7 | Wildguard F1-score, content moderation classification, non-reasoning mode (Table 14) | Safety |
| Dec 2, 2025 | | 84.9 | Wildguard F1-score, content moderation classification, non-reasoning mode (Table 14) | 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%