Model Profile
anthropic/claude-opus-4-1-20250805
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: external/anthropic/claude-opus-4-1-20250805
Author: anthropic
Origin: external_benchmark_shadow
Arch: unknown
Benchmark Coverage
Scored use cases: 12
Avg confidence: 27.1%
Evidence points: 192
Raw rows: 358
Weighted rows: 28
Catalog Metadata
Parameters: unknown
Context window: 4096
Downloads: 0
Intelligence Profile
Dimension Breakdown
No eq benchmarks found
No accuracy benchmarks found
* Low confidence — limited benchmark evidence for this dimension
3/5 dimensions scored · Last updated Apr 21, 2026
Benchmark Signals
Click through to the benchmark source behind this model profile.
Vals Legal Bench
overall_accuracy_pct
Normalized value 91.7% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Contract Drafting & Redlining
vals_legal_bench.overall_accuracy_pct · Mar 31, 2026
UGI Leaderboard
Writing ✍️
Normalized value 98.8% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Screenplay scene writing
ugi_main.writing · Apr 1, 2026
Vectara HHEM Leaderboard
overall_hallucination_error_pct
Normalized value 53.9% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Knowledge base Q&A (fast, no citations)
vectara_hhem_leaderboard.overall_hallucination_error_pct · Apr 1, 2026
FACTS Benchmark Suite
facts_grounding_score_pct
Normalized value 54.3% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Knowledge base Q&A (fast, no citations)
facts_benchmark_suite.facts_grounding_score_pct · Apr 1, 2026
Vals Tax Eval v2
overall_accuracy_pct
Normalized value 84.0% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Thesis red teaming
vals_tax_eval_v2.overall_accuracy_pct · Mar 31, 2026
Vectara HHEM Leaderboard
science_hallucination_error_pct
Normalized value 83.5% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Cross-paper contradiction analysis
vectara_hhem_leaderboard.science_hallucination_error_pct · Apr 1, 2026
Some fit rows have limited benchmark evidence.
5 of 12 scored use cases have low confidence or thin contributor coverage.
Coverage Diagnostics
actively scoredUse-Case Scores
119
Total Measurements
358
Weighted Measurements
28
Weighted Sources
13
Raw Source Coverage
Weighted Source Coverage
Best Use Cases for This Model
| Use Case | Score |
|---|---|
| Thesis red teaming use_case.fin.thesis_red_team | 16.5% |
| Cross-paper contradiction analysis use_case.bio.paper_contradictions | 16.2% |
| Literature synthesis with citations use_case.bio.literature_synthesis | 16.2% |
| Screenplay scene writing use_case.creative.screenplay_scene | 16.1% |
| Poetry and lyrics use_case.creative.poetry_lyrics | 16.1% |
| Contract Drafting & Redlining use_case.legal.contract_drafting | 15.2% |
| Earnings call synthesis use_case.fin.earnings_call_synthesis | 14.9% |
| Transaction anomaly narrative use_case.fin.transaction_anomaly_narrative | 14.6% |
| Contract Q&A (RAG grounded) use_case.legal.contract_qna | 14.5% |
| Knowledge base Q&A (fast, no citations) use_case.business.kb_qna_fast | 14.3% |
| Regulatory summary use_case.legal.regulatory_summary | 14.2% |
| KYC profile synthesis use_case.fin.kyc_profile_synthesis | 14.0% |