| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Provides 11,435 multiple-choice questions across 7 safety categories in parallel Chinese and English versions, with structured JSON schema (id, category, question, options array, answer index) enabling systematic evaluation of LLM safety alignment. Dataset includes full test sets (test_en.json, test_zh.json) and category-balanced few-shot examples (dev_en.json, dev_zh.json with 5 examples per category) for both zero-shot and few-shot evaluation protocols.
Unique: Provides parallel Chinese-English safety evaluation with 7-category stratification and category-balanced few-shot examples (5 per category), enabling contrastive safety analysis across languages and fine-grained failure mode diagnosis. Most safety benchmarks (e.g., TruthfulQA, HarmBench) focus on English only or lack structured category decomposition.
vs alternatives: Uniquely covers both Chinese and English with identical category structure, enabling cross-lingual safety parity validation that general-purpose benchmarks like MMLU cannot provide; category-stratified design reveals which safety domains models struggle with rather than aggregate safety scores.
Implements dual evaluation modes where zero-shot presents questions directly without context, while five-shot provides 5 category-matched examples before each test question. System uses configurable prompt templates that can be adapted per-model (as shown in evaluate_baichuan.py) to optimize answer extraction from model outputs, supporting both structured and free-form response parsing.
Unique: Provides model-agnostic evaluation framework with configurable prompt templates (as evidenced by evaluate_baichuan.py supporting Baichuan-specific formatting) and explicit support for both zero-shot and five-shot modes with category-balanced examples, enabling systematic study of in-context learning effects on safety.
vs alternatives: Differs from static benchmarks like MMLU by supporting prompt customization per model and explicit few-shot/zero-shot comparison; more flexible than closed-source evaluation APIs (e.g., OpenAI Evals) by providing full control over prompt templates and answer extraction logic.
Aggregates model predictions into per-category accuracy scores across 7 safety domains, enabling fine-grained safety failure analysis beyond aggregate metrics. Leaderboard submission accepts UTF-8 JSON files mapping question IDs to predicted answer indices, with backend validation and ranking against baseline models. Architecture supports both English and Chinese evaluation tracks with separate leaderboards.
Unique: Implements 7-category stratified metric aggregation enabling fine-grained safety diagnosis, with official leaderboard integration supporting both English and Chinese evaluation tracks. Most safety benchmarks (TruthfulQA, HarmBench) report only aggregate scores without category-level breakdown.
vs alternatives: Category-stratified metrics reveal which safety domains models struggle with, enabling targeted safety improvements; leaderboard integration provides peer comparison and publication venue unlike standalone evaluation scripts.
Provides two data acquisition paths: shell script (download_data.sh) using curl/wget for direct Hugging Face download, and Python method (download_data.py) using the Hugging Face datasets library for programmatic access. Both methods download 6 JSON files (test_en.json, test_zh.json, test_zh_subset.json, dev_en.json, dev_zh.json) into a local data directory, with automatic decompression and validation.
Unique: Provides dual download paths (shell script and Python) enabling flexibility for different deployment contexts (CI/CD pipelines vs. interactive development), with Hugging Face integration for version management and caching. Most benchmarks provide only single download method or require manual GitHub cloning.
vs alternatives: Dual-method approach supports both infrastructure automation (shell) and Python integration without forcing dependency on datasets library; Hugging Face hosting enables automatic versioning and CDN distribution vs. GitHub raw file downloads.
Maintains three parallel test datasets: full English (test_en.json), full Chinese (test_zh.json), and filtered Chinese subset (test_zh_subset.json with 300 questions per category, filtered for sensitive keywords). Each question maintains identical structure and category mapping across languages, enabling direct cross-lingual comparison while test_zh_subset provides a safer evaluation option for sensitive deployment contexts.
Unique: Provides true parallel Chinese-English safety evaluation with identical category structure and question mapping, plus a filtered Chinese subset for regulated environments. Most safety benchmarks (TruthfulQA, HarmBench) are English-only; MMLU-Pro has Chinese but lacks safety focus and category stratification.
vs alternatives: Enables direct cross-lingual safety comparison on identical questions unlike separate English/Chinese benchmarks; filtered subset provides regulatory-compliant evaluation option unavailable in other multilingual safety benchmarks.
Organizes 11,435 questions into 7 distinct safety categories (specific categories not detailed in provided docs but implied by category field in JSON schema), enabling systematic analysis of which safety domains models fail in. Each question is tagged with a category label, allowing per-category accuracy computation and identification of domain-specific alignment gaps. Category-balanced few-shot examples (5 per category) support category-specific evaluation.
Unique: Implements 7-category safety taxonomy with category-balanced few-shot examples enabling systematic failure mode diagnosis. Most safety benchmarks (TruthfulQA, HarmBench) report only aggregate safety scores without category-level breakdown or category-specific few-shot examples.
vs alternatives: Category stratification reveals which safety domains models struggle with, enabling targeted improvements; category-balanced few-shot examples support category-specific evaluation unlike benchmarks with random few-shot sampling.
GPT-4o processes text, images, and audio through a single transformer architecture with shared token representations, eliminating separate modality encoders. Images are tokenized into visual patches and embedded into the same vector space as text tokens, enabling seamless cross-modal reasoning without explicit fusion layers. Audio is converted to mel-spectrogram tokens and processed identically to text, allowing the model to reason about speech content, speaker characteristics, and emotional tone in a single forward pass.
Unique: Single unified transformer processes all modalities through shared token space rather than separate encoders + fusion layers; eliminates modality-specific bottlenecks and enables emergent cross-modal reasoning patterns not possible with bolted-on vision/audio modules
vs alternatives: Faster and more coherent multimodal reasoning than Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 2.0 because unified architecture avoids cross-encoder latency and modality mismatch artifacts
GPT-4o implements a 128,000-token context window using optimized attention patterns (likely sparse or grouped-query attention variants) that reduce memory complexity from O(n²) to near-linear scaling. This enables processing of entire codebases, long documents, or multi-turn conversations without truncation. The model maintains coherence across the full context through learned positional embeddings that generalize beyond training sequence lengths.
Unique: Achieves 128K context with sub-linear attention complexity through architectural optimizations (likely grouped-query attention or sparse patterns) rather than naive quadratic attention, enabling practical long-context inference without prohibitive memory costs
vs alternatives: Longer context window than GPT-4 Turbo (128K vs 128K, but with faster inference) and more efficient than Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet (200K context but slower) for most production latency requirements
GPT-4o scores higher at 84/100 vs SafetyBench at 63/100. SafetyBench leads on ecosystem, while GPT-4o is stronger on quality.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
GPT-4o includes built-in safety mechanisms that filter harmful content, refuse unsafe requests, and provide explanations for refusals. The model is trained to decline requests for illegal activities, violence, abuse, and other harmful content. Safety filtering operates at inference time without requiring external moderation APIs. Applications can configure safety levels or override defaults for specific use cases.
Unique: Safety filtering is integrated into the model's training and inference, not a post-hoc filter; the model learns to refuse harmful requests during pretraining, resulting in more natural refusals than external moderation systems
vs alternatives: More integrated safety than external moderation APIs (which add latency and may miss context-dependent harms) because safety reasoning is part of the model's core capabilities
GPT-4o supports batch processing through OpenAI's Batch API, where multiple requests are submitted together and processed asynchronously at lower cost (50% discount). Batches are processed in the background and results are retrieved via polling or webhooks. Ideal for non-time-sensitive workloads like data processing, content generation, and analysis at scale.
Unique: Batch API is a first-class API tier with 50% cost discount, not a workaround; enables cost-effective processing of large-scale workloads by trading latency for savings
vs alternatives: More cost-effective than real-time API for bulk processing because 50% discount applies to all batch requests; better than self-hosting because no infrastructure management required
GPT-4o can analyze screenshots of code, whiteboards, and diagrams to understand intent and generate corresponding code. The model extracts code from images, understands handwritten pseudocode, and generates implementation from visual designs. Enables workflows where developers can sketch ideas visually and have them converted to working code.
Unique: Vision-based code understanding is native to the unified architecture, enabling the model to reason about visual design intent and generate code directly from images without separate vision-to-text conversion
vs alternatives: More integrated than separate vision + code generation pipelines because the model understands design intent and can generate semantically appropriate code, not just transcribe visible text
GPT-4o maintains conversation state across multiple turns, preserving context and building coherent narratives. The model tracks conversation history, remembers user preferences and constraints mentioned earlier, and generates responses that are consistent with prior exchanges. Supports up to 128K tokens of conversation history without losing coherence.
Unique: Context preservation is handled through explicit message history in the API, not implicit server-side state; gives applications full control over context management and enables stateless, scalable deployments
vs alternatives: More flexible than systems with implicit state management because applications can implement custom context pruning, summarization, or filtering strategies
GPT-4o includes built-in function calling via OpenAI's function schema format, where developers define tool signatures as JSON schemas and the model outputs structured function calls with validated arguments. The model learns to map natural language requests to appropriate functions and generate correctly-typed arguments without additional prompting. Supports parallel function calls (multiple tools invoked in single response) and automatic retry logic for invalid schemas.
Unique: Native function calling is deeply integrated into the model's training and inference, not a post-hoc wrapper; the model learns to reason about tool availability and constraints during pretraining, resulting in more natural tool selection than prompt-based approaches
vs alternatives: More reliable function calling than Claude 3.5 Sonnet (which uses tool_use blocks) because GPT-4o's schema binding is tighter and supports parallel calls natively without workarounds
GPT-4o's JSON mode constrains the output to valid JSON matching a provided schema, using constrained decoding (token-level filtering during generation) to ensure every output is parseable and schema-compliant. The model generates JSON directly without intermediate text, eliminating parsing errors and hallucinated fields. Supports nested objects, arrays, enums, and type constraints (string, number, boolean, null).
Unique: Uses token-level constrained decoding during inference to guarantee schema compliance, not post-hoc validation; the model's probability distribution is filtered at each step to only allow tokens that keep the output valid JSON, eliminating hallucinated fields entirely
vs alternatives: More reliable than Claude's tool_use for structured output because constrained decoding guarantees validity at generation time rather than relying on the model to self-correct
+6 more capabilities