VISTA ↗39.95%
Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental · Scale Labs · Score ↗
Google / MODEL EVIDENCE
Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental
2 benchmarks · 2 observations · 2 sources
Scores at a glance
2 benchmarks · large dot: Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental; small dots: closest models where reported
FACTS Grounding ↗83.6%
Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental · FACTS Grounding · Final factuality score · judge average · eligibility-filtered evaluation ↗
Closest models by score
Similar positions on shared benchmark leaderboards. Smaller gaps are closer.
Gemini 1.5 Pro →Google
2 of 2 shared benchmark comparisons
How similarity is measured
Mean absolute gap in percentile positions on shared benchmark settings; lower is closer. At least 60% overlap is required, with a minimum of three when available. Independent evaluations are used when there are at least three; otherwise published report comparisons are used. Repeated model observations within one setting are averaged before ranking. Writing-style traits and composite indices are excluded. This describes similarity, not an overall quality ranking.
Sources
Every plotted observation links to its evaluation. Reported configurations, benchmark versions and task subsets can differ; similarity describes shared scores, not training lift.
- The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Input — published result table ↗
All 26 authors
Alon Jacovi, Andrew Wang, Chris Alberti, Connie Tao, Jon Lipovetz, Kate Olszewska, Lukas Haas, Michelle Liu, Nate Keating, Adam Bloniarz, Carl Saroufim, Corey Fry, Dror Marcus, Doron Kukliansky, Gaurav Singh Tomar, James Swirhun, Jinwei Xing, Lily Wang, Madhu Gurumurthy, Michael Aaron, Moran Ambar, Rachana Fellinger, Rui Wang, Zizhao Zhang, Sasha Goldshtein, Dipanjan Das
- Scale Labs — evaluation methodology and results ↗
Names used in source tables
Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental