Skip to main content
ShippedNo vapor

The AI that actually shipped

VerdictIBM (ibm-granite)

Editor's first pass (AI-assisted)

Scored by an AI research pass from the linked sources; a human editor will re-score it. How we score →

Real4.5Open Apache-2.0 weights and a GGUF repo.
Useful4.0One model for safety, RAG groundedness and agent function-call checks, with bring-your-own criteria.
Notable3.5A long-running enterprise guard family continuing.
Novel3.0Iterates on the earlier Granite Guardian line.
Hype gap▼ −1.0 under
Shipped

Readers

Upvotes count the readers who want this seen. Ratings are 1 to 5 scores on the four dimensions; the rating count is the number of readers who rated it. The editor’s score is shown on its own and is the headline figure. Once readers sign in, their ratings will pull a score toward the readers’ view only as more of them rate, and a reader mean from fewer than 5 ratings is too few to print. How ranking works →

IBM releases Granite Guardian 4.1 8B, a judge model for safety, RAG and agent checks

Apache-2.0 judge on Granite 4.1 8B with a hybrid reasoning mode. Covers harm, groundedness and function-calling hallucination, plus custom criteria.

IBM Research released Granite Guardian 4.1 8B in April 2026; the Hugging Face repository was created on 16 April. It is a safety model that judges whether prompts or responses meet specified criteria, with a hybrid mode that can reason before scoring or return a direct yes/no. It is fine-tuned from Granite 4.1 8B, has 8B parameters and is licensed Apache-2.0.

Risk categories on the card are general (harm, social bias, jailbreaking, violence, profanity, unethical behaviour), RAG hallucination (context relevance, groundedness, answer relevance), agentic (function-calling hallucination) and custom bring-your-own criteria.

Reported results, non-think and think: out-of-distribution safety aggregate F1 0.79 and 0.78; LM-AggreFact groundedness balanced accuracy 0.760 and 0.764; FC Reward Bench 0.79 and 0.78; IFEval multi-constraint 0.844 and 0.827. Best-of-N reward modelling on JETTS scores 70.29, non-think only.

The limits are stated. It was trained and tested on English only. It must be used in its prescribed yes/no scoring format, and deviations can produce unexpected output. Reasoning traces may contain unsafe content and may not faithfully reflect its decision. Custom criteria need separate testing. For stricter cost or latency limits, IBM points to its 38M-parameter hate, abuse and profanity model.

A judge that also checks agent calls, which is a useful reach.

Sources

Editor's first pass (AI-assisted)

Primary evidence

Comments