← Models

Model profile

Phi 3.5 Mini Instruct

Microsoftdeveloper
2024-08-22release date
#193 / 267overall rank
5eval lineages

Evidence summary

Phi 3.5 Mini Instruct has an estimated overall rank of #193; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #73–#234. Its behavior-only rank is #196; company governance moves the combined estimate to #193. Published evidence spans 5 evals and 6 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is Open LLM Safety Index (jailbreakbench_safety_rate, #4 of 21); its weakest is Large-scale Moral Machine experiment on LLMs (human_choice_distance, #36 of 39).

Compare this model

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

Official and reference links

Published eval results

Rank is within that sub-eval. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the global rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionBetterSource
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatchild_sexual_exploitation#23 / 3226.1↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatdefamation#9 / 3210.3↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chathate#10 / 326.2↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatindiscriminate_weapons_cbrne#17 / 3224.9↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatintellectual_property#9 / 327.1↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatnon_violent_crimes#12 / 3214.1↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatprivacy#14 / 3211↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsex_related_crimes#17 / 3215↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsexual_content#17 / 3223.6↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatspecialized_advice#15 / 3215.1↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatsuicide_self_harm#19 / 3214.2↓ lowerSource ↗official
AILuminate General Purpose AI Chatviolent_crimes#16 / 3217.6↓ lowerSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#209 / 26011.37↑ higherSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#54 / 26092↑ higherSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#98 / 26079.44↑ higherSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#99 / 25897.45↑ higherSource ↗official
Large-scale Moral Machine experiment on LLMshuman_choice_distance#36 / 391.557↓ lowerSource ↗official
Microsoft Phi Safety Panelsharmful_continuation#3 / 100.006↓ lowerSource ↗official
Microsoft Phi Safety Panelsharmful_summarization#7 / 100.119↓ lowerSource ↗official
Microsoft Phi Safety Panelsjailbreak#5 / 100.119↓ lowerSource ↗official
Microsoft Phi Safety Panelsthird_party_harm#4 / 100.243↓ lowerSource ↗official
Open LLM Safety Indexjailbreakbench_safety_rate#4 / 210.6↑ higherSource ↗official
Open LLM Safety Indexstrongreject_safety_rate#8 / 210.3333↑ higherSource ↗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.

ValueCompass

DimensionValueDistribution
Universalism75.8
Self-direction47.6
Care / Harm26
Fairness / Cheating24.3
Ethical91.1