- Duale AI
- Documentation
- Model routing
- Task capabilities
Task capabilities for model routing
Explains how to choose task capabilities for model routing, listing available values and the benchmark evidence behind each.
This page covers task capability selection, benchmark evidence, response quality measures, and permissiveness preferences for model routing.
- Task capability values and intended results.
- Benchmark evidence for General and task capabilities.
- Response quality evidence and interpretation.
- Willingness to answer allowed requests.
- Applying evidence within its measured scope.
Summaries were generated by AI.
Choose task capabilities to describe the work your application needs, without choosing a model by name.
Set required_capabilities for skills the Task depends on and preferred_capabilities for skills
that would help. Both are best-effort routing preferences. Routing judges each capability against the other enabled
routes that can take the request. A route has a capability when its benchmark evidence places it among the stronger of
them. Routing prefers routes that have every required capability and can fall back to the closest available route when
no route whose context window fits the request has all of them. The stronger a route is for a preferred capability, compared with the other routes, the more
it is preferred; no route is excluded. A route with no benchmark measurement for a required capability is tried after
measured routes that meet the same other requirements.
Choose a capability by the intended result
| Value | Use it for | Example |
|---|---|---|
problem_solving | Deriving conclusions through several logical or scientific steps. | Explain which hypothesis follows from a set of constraints. |
math | Mathematical problem solving and formal proofs. | Solve a competition-style problem or construct a checkable proof. |
code | Generating, inspecting, modifying, debugging, or migrating software. | Implement a function, review a patch, or port a program. |
agentic | Completing multiple steps with available Tools and feedback. | Research a question, inspect results, and revise a deliverable. |
long_context | Using information spread across extensive supplied material. | Reconcile facts from distant sections of a document set. |
finance | Financial analysis, modeling, and banking workflows. | Compare financial statements or prepare a spreadsheet model. |
cyber_defensive | Reproducing and remediating software vulnerabilities. | Reproduce a reported defect and prepare a corrective patch. |
cyber_offensive | Assessing whether a vulnerability can be exploited within an authorized scope. | Evaluate whether a known vulnerability can be exploited in a test environment. |
medical | Medical work; task-performance evidence focuses on clinical documentation. | Turn supplied encounter notes into a structured clinical document. |
legal | Legal analysis and reviewable legal documents. | Compare clauses or prepare a source-grounded review draft. |
problem_solving emphasizes the steps needed to reach a conclusion. long_context adds the need to use
extensive input. agentic adds iterative work with Tools and feedback. Combine them when the Task needs
those distinct skills.
General is a route’s overall strength compared with the other enabled routes, as the LLM Coach view of the Dashboard shows it. It remains useful for comparing and sorting models, but is not a task capability. For a new Task without a dominant specialization, omit capability preferences. Broad benchmark evidence still informs routing.
Instruction-following evidence measures a model’s performance under benchmark conditions. Use a response schema and your application’s checks when an output must satisfy a deterministic contract.
Express the work the Task needs
For conclusions that require combining evidence across several long documents, use this
RoutingPolicy JSON excerpt:
{
"required_capabilities": ["long_context"],
"preferred_capabilities": ["problem_solving"]
}For a code change with iterative Tool use, require code and prefer agentic. Choose the capabilities
that describe the work; adding every capability does not make a Task better specified.
The SDK’s capabilities= shorthand applies only when you omit routing=. See
application integration for a complete SDK example.
In a continuation, omitted fields keep the parent’s preferences. The
SDK reference explains how to override or clear them.
Task capabilities do not enable Tools, authorize data access, or declare image or structured-output support. Use route settings for endpoint features, Tools for Tool access, and the routing contract for hard requirements.
See the benchmark evidence for General and task capabilities
The following associations distinguish General comparison evidence from named task preferences. A benchmark places routes against each other only when several of your routes have a measurement for it. Its appearance here does not mean every model, Model Route, or customer pool has that measurement.
| Benchmark | Comparison and task scopes | Evaluated work |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | General, problem_solving | Broad academic knowledge and reasoning. |
| Humanity’s Last Exam (HLE) | General, problem_solving | Advanced multidisciplinary questions; coverage depends on the evaluated subset and mode. |
| GPQA Diamond | General, problem_solving | Graduate-level scientific questions. |
| MMMU-Pro | General, problem_solving | Multimodal understanding and visual reasoning, used as indirect evidence for broader reasoning work. |
| IFBench | General | Following detailed, verifiable instructions. |
| AA-Omniscience Accuracy | General | Factual knowledge; this is the accuracy measure. |
| SimpleQA | General | Factual recall without external tools. |
| AA-LCR, historical version; AA-LCR v1.1 | long_context | Reasoning over long inputs. The two versions are separate measurements. |
| AIME 2025 | math | Competition mathematics. |
| ProofBench v1; ProofBench v1.1 | math | Machine-checked Lean 4 theorem proving. Results from the two versions are not directly comparable. |
| CritPt | problem_solving | Research-level physics reasoning across modern physics disciplines. |
| SciCode | code | Scientific programming and implementation of scientific methods. |
| LiveCodeBench | code | Code generation for recent programming problems; the evaluation window matters. |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | code, agentic | Software-engineering tasks completed through iterative work. |
| Vals Code Migration | code, agentic | CLI and COBOL-to-Java migration, evaluated through behavioral tests. |
| Terminal-Bench Hard; Terminal-Bench 2.0, 2.1, and 4.0 | agentic | Multi-step terminal tasks. Each version remains distinct; the 4.0 measurements use mini-swe-agent. |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 | agentic | Scientific workflows with mini-swe-agent; attempt counts and retry policies can differ between evaluations. |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | agentic | Telecommunications workflows with tools and interaction. |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL), overall accuracy | agentic | Function selection and argument generation; interpret the result in its recorded evaluation version. |
| GDPval-AA v2; GDPval-AA v2.1 | agentic | Professional work evaluated through Elo ratings. Compare ratings within the same version. |
| BrowseComp-Plus Search Profile v1 | agentic | Research with search tools under the specified evaluation profile. |
| Vals Web Search Index (Exa) | agentic | Multi-step finance and legal research using the same Exa search tool across evaluated models. |
| Toolathlon-Verified | agentic | Reliability across extended tool-use tasks. |
| Vending-Bench 2 | agentic | Sustained operation of a simulated vending business, measured by final bank balance. |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym-AA | agentic | Enterprise workflows. |
| AutomationBench-AA | agentic | Business-workflow objectives completed without benchmark guardrail violations. |
| MCP-Atlas | agentic | Tool use across multiple servers. |
| APEX-Agents-AA | agentic | Extended professional-services tasks. |
| Finance Agent v2 | finance | Financial-analysis tasks. |
| τ³-Banking | finance | Multi-step banking workflows with tools. |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | finance | Financial modeling in spreadsheets. |
| CyberGym Level 1 | cyber_defensive | Reproducing software vulnerabilities. |
| CyberBench PATCH | cyber_defensive | Vulnerability remediation. |
| SEC-Bench Pro | cyber_offensive | Vulnerability discovery and proof-of-concept generation. |
| ExploitBench | cyber_offensive | Machine-verified browser exploitation capabilities. |
| ExploitGym | cyber_offensive | Turning known software vulnerabilities into code execution. |
| MedScribe | medical | Clinical documentation; it does not cover every medical task. |
| Harvey LAB-AA, all-pass rate without a hallucination gate | legal | Legal work products. Dataset and judging versions matter; this measure is distinct from a hallucination-gated headline score. |
MMMU-Pro’s visual tasks provide evidence of reasoning across images and text. A score does not establish endpoint image support; Images explains how to declare it.
Understand the evidence for response quality
These benchmarks provide response-quality evidence without adding capability values. They measure factual reliability and appropriate response behavior; they do not establish that a particular answer is correct or safe.
| Benchmark | Evaluated behavior | How to interpret its relevance |
|---|---|---|
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate | Incorrect answers among responses that were not fully correct. Lower is preferable. | Read alongside AA-Omniscience Accuracy; abstention can reduce hallucinations without answering the question. |
| HELM Safety | A composite evaluation across several risk categories. Higher indicates lower measured risk. | This is not a refusal rate. |
| FORTRESS average risk | Harmful criteria met by answers to adversarial requests. Lower is preferable. | Separate from FORTRESS’s benign over-refusal measure. |
| StrongREJECT harmfulness | How useful an answer is for carrying out a forbidden request. Lower is preferable. | Measures harmful assistance beyond whether an answer contains a refusal phrase. |
| SAFE-Teen health-advice failure rate | Clinical boundaries in conversations with teens aged 13–17. Lower is preferable. | Applies when medical is requested; complements medical documentation evidence. |
| SAFE-Teen urgent-safety failure rate | Recognizing danger and directing teens to immediate help. Lower is preferable. | Applies when medical is requested; does not establish clinical competence. |
- Benchmark
- AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate
- Evaluated behavior
- Incorrect answers among responses that were not fully correct. Lower is preferable.
- How to interpret its relevance
- Read alongside AA-Omniscience Accuracy; abstention can reduce hallucinations without answering the question.
- Benchmark
- HELM Safety
- Evaluated behavior
- A composite evaluation across several risk categories. Higher indicates lower measured risk.
- How to interpret its relevance
- This is not a refusal rate.
- Benchmark
- FORTRESS average risk
- Evaluated behavior
- Harmful criteria met by answers to adversarial requests. Lower is preferable.
- How to interpret its relevance
- Separate from FORTRESS’s benign over-refusal measure.
- Benchmark
- StrongREJECT harmfulness
- Evaluated behavior
- How useful an answer is for carrying out a forbidden request. Lower is preferable.
- How to interpret its relevance
- Measures harmful assistance beyond whether an answer contains a refusal phrase.
- Benchmark
- SAFE-Teen health-advice failure rate
- Evaluated behavior
- Clinical boundaries in conversations with teens aged 13–17. Lower is preferable.
- How to interpret its relevance
- Applies when
medicalis requested; complements medical documentation evidence.
- Benchmark
- SAFE-Teen urgent-safety failure rate
- Evaluated behavior
- Recognizing danger and directing teens to immediate help. Lower is preferable.
- How to interpret its relevance
- Applies when
medicalis requested; does not establish clinical competence.
SAFE-Teen results inform medical routing. Duale AI uses the results of the October 2026, 106-scenario evaluation
without an added system prompt. Partial ratings count as non-failures, so the complement of either failure rate is not a
strict pass rate. These simulated teen conversations do not establish how a model will
behave in adult care.
Choose willingness to answer allowed requests
Use target_permissiveness to express the preferred willingness to answer sensitive but allowed
requests. Use 0 to favor cautious, qualified answers, 0.5 to balance caution and directness,
and 1 to favor direct engagement. Set null for no specific preference. A reply that declines work the request
allows is not the answer: When a model declines the
work states what happens instead.
The following measurements inform willingness across task types. FORTRESS evaluates benign requests; SpeechMap provides indirect evidence from engagement with sensitive political requests.
| Benchmark measurement | Evaluated behavior | Relevance to the preference |
|---|---|---|
| FORTRESS over-refusal | Refusal of benign requests paired with adversarial requests. | Less over-refusal indicates greater willingness to answer allowed requests. |
| SpeechMap complete | Complete answers in the evaluated political-request corpus. | A complete answer need not be correct or appropriate. |
| SpeechMap evasive | Evasive or deflective answers in that corpus. | Engagement that stops short of a complete answer. |
| SpeechMap denial | Refused requests in that corpus. | The label alone does not establish that refusing was wrong. |
- Benchmark measurement
- FORTRESS over-refusal
- Evaluated behavior
- Refusal of benign requests paired with adversarial requests.
- Relevance to the preference
- Less over-refusal indicates greater willingness to answer allowed requests.
- Benchmark measurement
- SpeechMap complete
- Evaluated behavior
- Complete answers in the evaluated political-request corpus.
- Relevance to the preference
- A complete answer need not be correct or appropriate.
- Benchmark measurement
- SpeechMap evasive
- Evaluated behavior
- Evasive or deflective answers in that corpus.
- Relevance to the preference
- Engagement that stops short of a complete answer.
- Benchmark measurement
- SpeechMap denial
- Evaluated behavior
- Refused requests in that corpus.
- Relevance to the preference
- The label alone does not establish that refusing was wrong.
SpeechMap’s categories describe response outcomes from the same evaluation. They do not certify that every evaluated request was allowed. The preference does not set your application’s allowed-use policy or measure protection against harmful requests. Routing contract and limits defines the setting and its limits.
Apply the evidence within its measured scope
Benchmarks differ in task coverage, evaluation tools, reasoning effort, attempt budgets, and scoring. Some results use private tasks or provider-reported measurements. A benchmark name alone does not establish that two scores are comparable or independently reproducible.
Review the Model Route’s Benchmarks fields for available measurements and their units. Source and evaluation details can be incomplete; use recorded versions and conditions when assessing comparability. Historical AA-LCR, ProofBench v1, and GDPval-AA v2 results do not become measurements of their newer versions. The stored Harvey LAB-AA measure is the all-pass rate before any hallucination gate; do not infer a dataset or judging revision from that name alone. Its coverage does not establish performance across every jurisdiction or legal task.
A missing benchmark measurement is an evidence gap, not a measured zero. The available evidence can change as your model pool changes. Test the Task outcomes you need, including the fallback result, through the checks in application integration.