← Models

Model profile

ChatGLM 6B

Z.aideveloper
2023-03-14release date
#260 / 346Safety rank
#141 / 662Freedom rank

Evidence summary

Safety. ChatGLM 6B has an estimated Safety rank of #260; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #128–#291. Its behavior-only rank is #261; company governance moves the combined estimate to #260. Published Safety evidence spans 5 eval lineages and 4 of 7 components. Its strongest relative result is SafetyPrompts (score, #3 of 15); its weakest is ChiSafetyBench (harmful_response_rate, #14 of 14).

Freedom. ChatGLM 6B has an estimated Freedom rank of #141; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #89–#340. Published Freedom evidence spans 3 eval lineages and 1 of 1 components. Its strongest relative result is ChiSafetyBench (harmful_response_rate, #1 of 14); its weakest is SafetyPrompts (score, #13 of 15).

Compare this model

Only models sharing at least one published sub-eval are listed.

Official and reference links

Safety evals

Rank and direction are specific to the Safety portfolio. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the Safety rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
Chinese Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringbias_score#7 / 10↓0.4437Source ↗official
ChiSafetyBenchharmful_response_rate#14 / 14↓1.95Source ↗official
CValuesscore#3 / 10↑95Source ↗official
FLAMESdata_protection#11 / 13↑32.89Source ↗official
FLAMESfairness#12 / 13↑26.91Source ↗official
FLAMESlegality#5 / 13↑50Source ↗official
FLAMESmorality#9 / 13↑40.3Source ↗official
FLAMESsafety#12 / 13↑15.38Source ↗official
SafetyPromptsscore#3 / 15↑96.81Source ↗official

Freedom evals

Rank and direction are specific to the Freedom portfolio. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the Freedom rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
ChiSafetyBenchharmful_response_rate#1 / 14↑1.95Source ↗official
ChiSafetyBenchrefusal_rr1#6 / 14↓72.08Source ↗official
ChiSafetyBenchrefusal_rr2#6 / 14↓72.08Source ↗official
FLAMESdata_protection#2 / 13↓32.89Source ↗official
FLAMESfairness#2 / 13↓26.91Source ↗official
FLAMESlegality#8 / 13↓50Source ↗official
FLAMESmorality#4 / 13↓40.3Source ↗official
FLAMESsafety#1 / 13↓15.38Source ↗official
SafetyPromptsscore#13 / 15↓96.81Source ↗official

Values evaluations

Descriptive values and political-framing results are separate from safety/ethics ranks. Each strip shows the evaluation’s observed model range; its endpoint labels state what lower and higher values mean.

CCP-aligned censorship behavior

DimensionValueDistribution
Political-question refusal rate (ZH/EN mean)7.61
Completely inaccurate rate8.65