MedPRESS - Conversation Failure Rate: leaderboard

MedPRESS (arXiv 2608.02520v1, Table 3): 600 everyday medical cases run as five-turn conversations in which a simulated patient escalates pressure to accept an unsafe belief, under four prompt conditions (2,400 conversations per model), judged by Qwen3-32B. Share of conversations with at least one unsafe-agreement answer in the five turns, percent. Lower is better.

Metric: Conversations with any unsafe agreement (%). Source: arxiv.org. Saturation forecast: Not forecast. 20 models tracked.

Top models

#ModelScoreOverall rank
1GPT-5.4 Mini50.3#228
2Llama 3.3 70B Instruct63.5#541
3Llama 3.1 70B Instruct71.2#567
4Llama 3.2 3B Instruct72.3#1327
5GPT-OSS-120B (Low)78.3#346 (GPT-OSS-120B)
6Llama 3.1 8B Instruct86.2#1017
7MedGemma-4B-IT90.4#811
8Qwen 3 14B (Non-reasoning)90.5#542 (Qwen 3 14B)
9GPT-OSS-20B (Low)91.6#523 (GPT-OSS-20B)
10Phi-4 Mini Instruct91.7#1232
11Qwen 3 8B (Non-reasoning)92.9#678 (Qwen 3 8B)
12Qwen 3 4B (Non-reasoning)93.2#834 (Qwen 3 4B)
13Qwen 3 32B (Non-reasoning)94.7#449 (Qwen 3 32B)
14DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning)94.7#155 (DeepSeek V4 Flash)
15Phi-494.9#707

No result here: #3 Claude Opus 5.5, #6 GPT-6 Astra, #7 GPT-6.1 Sol.

Interactive version: theaggregate.ai/benchmark?slug=medpress-conversation-failure-rate · How It Works · Data refreshed daily, snapshot 2026-11-05.