Gemini 4 Argon — Model Card
Google DeepMind's model card for Gemini 4 Argon, which states that it was published in October 2026.
- Issued by
- Google DeepMind
- Authors credited
- No authorship claim recorded yet. The source record lists Google DeepMind.
- Dates
- Published 2026-10 issue evidence
The card states 'Published: October 2026', month precision; no revision date is printed.
- Exact source
- Gemini 4 Argon — Model Card Google DeepMind · published 2026-10 · Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-02 (SHA-256 562cd3c5deddf75dd2aff7a59dcf6dcc273277eae7d82fe957b6a607d84f7763) directly from the publisher’s host. Retrieved again on 2026-11-03 with the same SHA-256. The archive capture was found by an index search of the Internet Archive on 2026-11-03; it was not opened, and its bytes are not authenticated.Archived copy, captured 2026-10-13: Gemini 4 Argon — Model Card. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2026-10-13. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-11-02.
Appears in
No collection holds a record about this document yet.
Versions
google-deepmind-gemini-4-argon-model-card: 1 recorded version, oldest first, published by Google DeepMind. A version is shown as replacing another only where a record says so. Date order alone never implies it.
- 2026-10 · publishedAs dated 'Published: October 2026' in its preamble (this version)
This version
Provisions in this version · 14 quoted · 2 not found
A limited selection of quoted provisions: what this edition says about thresholds, required actions, who decides and exceptions, and other statements of the text. It is not a full summary and says nothing about implementation. A “not found” record states which part of the edition was inspected. It is not a claim that the text was deleted.
- Model-card questionCard date“Published: October 2026”Model card preamble, PDF p. 2 (printed p. 1)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionRelease date“Gemini 4 Argon is distributed in the following channels”Distribution, PDF p. 4 (printed p. 3)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionFramework cited“In line with our Frontier Safety Framework (April 2026), we conducted critical capability assessments of Gemini 4 Argon”Safety & Security, 'Frontier Safety Assessment', PDF p. 11 (printed p. 10)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionLink to framework“In line with our Frontier Safety Framework (April 2026), we conducted critical capability assessments of Gemini 4 Argon”Safety & Security, 'Frontier Safety Assessment', PDF p. 11 (printed p. 10)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionFramework determination“We cannot rule out that Gemini 4 Argon has reached this CCL for biological information risk”Safety & Security, 'Frontier Safety Assessment', PDF p. 11 (printed p. 10)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionSafeguards tied to determination“we therefore developed a safety case for its biorisk capabilities that we assess lower risk to below the biological CCL level”Safety & Security, 'Frontier Safety Assessment', PDF p. 11 (printed p. 10)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionChemical and biological“We can rule out the TCL for the chemical, radiological, and nuclear domains with reasonable confidence.”Frontier safety table, CBRN row, PDF p. 12 (printed p. 11)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionCyber“We cannot rule out that Gemini 4 Argon reaches the cybersecurity CCL.”Frontier safety table, Cybersecurity row, PDF p. 12 (printed p. 11)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionAutonomy and AI R&D“Gemini 4 Argon's performance remains below our CCL threshold.”Frontier safety table, ML R&D row, PDF p. 14 (printed p. 13)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionPersuasion“we assess its overall capabilities to be below the CCL threshold”Frontier safety table, Harmful Manipulation row, PDF p. 13 (printed p. 12)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionAlignment and deception“Stealth and Situational Awareness TCL: We cannot rule out that Gemini 4 Argon has reached this TCL”Safety & Security, 'Frontier Safety Assessment', PDF p. 11 (printed p. 10)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionRed-teaming“Human Red Teaming conducted by specialist teams who sit outside of the model development team, across the policies and desiderata”Safety & Security, 'Evaluation Approach', PDF p. 8 (printed p. 7)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionExternal testers“drawing on internal and external results”Safety & Security, 'Frontier Safety Assessment', PDF p. 11 (printed p. 10)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionStated limits“As a nascent risk area we continue to iterate on our harmful manipulation evaluations”Frontier safety table, Harmful Manipulation row, PDF p. 13 (printed p. 12)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Not found in the inspected textGovernment instituteInspected: Gemini 4 Argon — Model Card: Whole card.Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Not found in the inspected textRelease decisionInspected: Gemini 4 Argon — Model Card: Whole card.Inspect claim & evidence ↗
Earliest version recorded here; no replacement is recorded.
Issue and authorship records
Documentary relations
Each relation is listed separately. Citing, crediting and reporting the use of a method are different acts, and none of them shows agreement or influence by itself.
Cites · 1
Explicit references in this document. Citation is neither agreement nor influence.
Not recorded for this document: cited by · explicitly credits · reports using a method from · method reported as used by · applies parts of · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.