MedPRESS - Unsafe Agreement 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 answers over turns 1-5 that agree with the unsafe belief, percent; ambiguous non-rejections count as neither agreement nor adherence. Lower is better.

Metric: Unsafe-agreement answers (%; turns 1-5, LLM judge). Source: arxiv.org. 20 models tracked.

Top models

#ModelScoreOverall rank
1GPT-5.4 Mini21.9#228
2Llama 3.3 70B Instruct34.7#541
3GPT-OSS-120B (Low)34.9#346 (GPT-OSS-120B)
4Llama 3.1 70B Instruct41.9#567
5Llama 3.2 3B Instruct42.8#1327
6Llama 3.1 8B Instruct43#1017
7MedGemma-4B-IT46.2#811
8Phi-4 Mini Instruct46.8#1232
9Qwen 3 14B (Non-reasoning)50.4#542 (Qwen 3 14B)
10Qwen 3 8B (Non-reasoning)50.8#678 (Qwen 3 8B)
11GPT-OSS-20B (Low)52.4#523 (GPT-OSS-20B)
12Qwen 3 4B (Non-reasoning)54.9#834 (Qwen 3 4B)
13Phi-456.1#707
14Qwen 3 32B (Non-reasoning)57.8#449 (Qwen 3 32B)
15Gemma 3 27B (IT)61.4#528

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