Model Profile
DeepSeek-V3.1
Use this page to decide where this model is a strong fit. Rankings below are benchmark-backed by use case, with explicit confidence and contributor metrics.
Identity
ID: deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.1
Author: deepseek-ai
Origin: huggingface_catalog
Arch: unknown
Benchmark Coverage
Scored use cases: 12
Avg confidence: 11.0%
Evidence points: 56
Raw rows: 23
Weighted rows: 13
Catalog Metadata
Parameters: unknown
Context window: 4096
Downloads: 123,230
Intelligence Profile
Dimension Breakdown
No iq benchmarks found
No eq benchmarks found
No creativity benchmarks found
No based benchmarks found
* Low confidence — limited benchmark evidence for this dimension
1/5 dimensions scored · Last updated Apr 2, 2026
Benchmark Signals
Click through to the benchmark source behind this model profile.
Vectara HHEM Leaderboard
overall_hallucination_error_pct
Normalized value 82.9% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Knowledge base Q&A (fast, no citations)
vectara_hhem_leaderboard.overall_hallucination_error_pct · Apr 1, 2026
Vectara HHEM Leaderboard
overall_answer_rate_pct
Normalized value 85.3% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Agent-assist reply suggestions
vectara_hhem_leaderboard.overall_answer_rate_pct · Apr 1, 2026
Vectara HHEM Leaderboard
science_hallucination_error_pct
Normalized value 92.2% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Literature synthesis with citations
vectara_hhem_leaderboard.science_hallucination_error_pct · Apr 1, 2026
Vectara HHEM Leaderboard
law_hallucination_error_pct
Normalized value 91.2% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Contract Q&A (RAG grounded)
vectara_hhem_leaderboard.law_hallucination_error_pct · Apr 1, 2026
SimpleQA Verified
simpleqa_verified_score_pct
Normalized value 26.1% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Knowledge base Q&A (fast, no citations)
simpleqa_verified.simpleqa_verified_score_pct · Apr 1, 2026
Vectara HHEM Leaderboard
finance_hallucination_error_pct
Normalized value 63.6% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Thesis red teaming
vectara_hhem_leaderboard.finance_hallucination_error_pct · Apr 1, 2026
Some fit rows have limited benchmark evidence.
12 of 12 scored use cases have low confidence or thin contributor coverage.
Coverage Diagnostics
actively scoredUse-Case Scores
17
Total Measurements
23
Weighted Measurements
13
Weighted Sources
2
Raw Source Coverage
Weighted Source Coverage
Best Use Cases for This Model
| Use Case | Score |
|---|---|
| Knowledge base Q&A (fast, no citations) use_case.business.kb_qna_fast | 8.2% |
| Literature synthesis with citations use_case.bio.literature_synthesis | 7.9% |
| Cross-paper contradiction analysis use_case.bio.paper_contradictions | 7.9% |
| Contract Q&A (RAG grounded) use_case.legal.contract_qna | 7.6% |
| Regulatory summary use_case.legal.regulatory_summary | 7.4% |
| Knowledge base Q&A (with citations) use_case.business.kb_qna_with_citations | 7.3% |
| Contract redline summary use_case.legal.contract_redline_summary | 7.1% |
| Agent-assist reply suggestions use_case.cx.agent_assist_replies | 7.1% |
| Support dialogue agent use_case.cx.support_dialogue_agent | 7.0% |
| Clause playbook check use_case.legal.playbook_clause_check | 6.9% |
| Contract term extraction use_case.legal.contract_term_extraction | 6.9% |
| Thesis red teaming use_case.fin.thesis_red_team | 6.8% |