Benchmark Almanac

XSTest

Cohere Command A 1.10% leads since April 2025
Only in system cards

Models answer 250 safe prompts that resemble unsafe ones and 200 unsafe contrast prompts. Labs usually report the incorrect refusal rate on safe prompts.

Anthropic model cards report the incorrect refusal rate on the non-malicious prompts, where lower is better.

Released
August 2023
Kind
Refusing harmful requests
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
o1 #117 on the capability index
Last in a system card
March 2026
Last model added
March 2026

In the authors’ words

Without proper safeguards, large language models will readily follow malicious instructions and generate toxic content. This risk motivates safety efforts such as red-teaming and large-scale feedback learning, which aim to make models both helpful and harmless. However, there is a tension between these two objectives, since harmlessness requires models to refuse to comply with unsafe prompts, and thus not be helpful. Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that some models may have struck a poor balance, so that even clearly safe prompts are refused if they use similar language to unsafe prompts or mention sensitive topics. In this paper, we introduce a new test suite called XSTest to identify such eXaggerated Safety behaviours in a systematic way. XSTest comprises 250 safe prompts across ten prompt types that well-calibrated models should not refuse to comply with, and 200 unsafe prompts as contrasts that models, for most applications, should refuse. We describe XSTest's creation and composition, and then use the test suite to highlight systematic failure modes in state-of-the-art language models as well as more general challenges in building safer language models.

Abstract of XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models (arXiv:2308.01263, CC0)
16
Models scored in lab cards
19
System cards report it, from 8 labs

Cohere Command A leads with 1.10% among models released by January 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 January 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Cohere Command A 1.10%
  2. 2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 1.70%
  3. 3 Claude 3.5 Haiku 2.00%
  4. 4 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) 4.30%
  5. 5 Claude 3 Opus 9.00%
  6. 6 Phi-4 Mini 20.8%
  7. 7 Phi-4-multimodal 26.4%
  8. 8 GPT-4.5 85%
  9. 9 o3-mini 88%
  10. 10 Olmo 3.1 32B Think 91.8%
  11. 11 o1 93.6%
  12. 12 Olmo 3 32B Think 93.9%
  13. 13 o1-mini 94.8%
  14. 14 DeepSeek-R1 95.3%
  15. 15 Falcon H1R 7B 96.4%
  16. 16 o1-preview 97.6%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Cohere Command A 1.10% Apr 2025 Lab model card
2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 1.70% Jun 2024 Lab model card
3 Claude 3.5 Haiku 2.00% Oct 2024 Lab model card
4 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) 4.30% Oct 2024 Lab model card
5 Claude 3 Opus 9.00% Mar 2024 Lab model card
6 Phi-4 Mini 20.8% Mar 2025 Lab model card
7 Phi-4-multimodal 26.4% Mar 2025 Lab model card
8 GPT-4.5 85% Feb 2025 Lab model card
9 o3-mini 88% Jan 2025 Lab model card
10 Olmo 3.1 32B Think 91.8% Dec 2025 Lab model card
11 o1 93.6% Dec 2024 Lab model card
12 Olmo 3 32B Think 93.9% Dec 2025 Lab model card
13 o1-mini 94.8% Sep 2024 Lab model card
14 DeepSeek-R1 95.3% Jan 2025 Lab model card
15 Falcon H1R 7B 96.4% Jan 2026 Lab model card
16 o1-preview 97.6% Sep 2024 Lab model card

3 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in August 2023

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Anthropic Cohere
Lab claims Not tested since Jan 2026

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.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Cohere Command A Claude 3.5 Sonnet Claude 3 Opus 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Cohere Command A Claude 3 Opus

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.

19 system cards report it, from 8 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
Mar 21, 2026 Seed1.8 model card XSTest, bar chart with no printed number (Figure 10) Safety
Jan 5, 2026 Falcon H1R 7B technical report 96.4 XSTest safe rate by Llama-Guard-3-8B, CoT+Answer, 98.0 Answer Only, 87.07 CoT Only (Table 10) Safety
Dec 15, 2025 Olmo 3 32B Think technical report 93.9 XSTest, refusal accuracy, Final Think 3.0 column (Table 54) Safety
Dec 15, 2025 Olmo 3.1 32B Think technical report 91.8 XSTest, refusal accuracy, Final Think 3.1 column (Table 54) Safety
Apr 1, 2025 Cohere Command A technical report 1.1 XSTest over-refusal, full 1.1 plus partial 0.0, lower is better (Table 17). Internal over-refusal set 7.1 Safety
Mar 3, 2025 Phi-4-multimodal technical report 26.4 XSTest VPRR, refusal rate on valid prompts, lower is better. IPRR on inappropriate prompts 92% (Table 12) Safety
Mar 3, 2025 Phi-4 Mini technical report 20.8 XSTest VPRR, refusal rate on valid prompts, lower is better. IPRR on inappropriate prompts 93.5% (Table 12) Safety
Feb 27, 2025 GPT-4.5 system card 85 XSTest, not_overrefuse (Table 1) Safety
Jan 31, 2025 o3-mini system card 88 XSTest, not_overrefuse (Table 1) Safety
Jan 20, 2025 DeepSeek-R1 technical report 95.3 XSTest safety score, from HELM (Table 9) Safety
Dec 5, 2024 o1 system card 93.6 XSTest, not_overrefuse, overall (Table 20, 0.94 in Table 1) Safety
Oct 22, 2024 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) model card 4.3 XSTest, incorrect refusals, lower is better (Table 6) Safety
Oct 22, 2024 Claude 3.5 Haiku model card 2 XSTest, incorrect refusals, lower is better (Table 6) Safety
Sep 12, 2024 o1-preview system card 97.6 XSTest, not_overrefuse, overall (Table 1, Table 15) Safety
Sep 12, 2024 o1-mini system card 94.8 XSTest, not_overrefuse, overall (Table 1, Table 15) Safety
Jun 20, 2024 Claude 3.5 Sonnet model card 1.7 XSTest, incorrect refusals, lower is better (Table 4) Safety
Mar 4, 2024 Claude 3 Sonnet model card XSTest, incorrect refusal rate, lower is better, log-scale chart without printed values (Figure 3) Safety
Mar 4, 2024 Claude 3 Opus model card 9 XSTest, incorrect refusal rate, lower is better, 9% stated in text (5.4.1, Figure 3) Safety
Mar 4, 2024 Claude 3 Haiku model card XSTest, incorrect refusal rate, lower is better, log-scale chart without printed values (Figure 3) 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%