GDM Situational Awareness
Agents must discover and remove unexplained constraints in a simulated Linux deployment across eleven challenges. Reports average success rate.
Situational awareness half of Google DeepMind's stealth and situational awareness evaluations (Phuong et al. 2025), open source in Inspect Evals. Google reports challenges passed out of 11, Meta the average success rate.
In the authors’ words
Recent work has demonstrated the plausibility of frontier AI models scheming – knowingly and covertly pursuing an objective misaligned with its developer's intentions. Such behavior could be very hard to detect, and if present in future advanced systems, could pose severe loss of control risk. It is therefore important for AI developers to rule out harm from scheming prior to model deployment. In this paper, we present a suite of scheming reasoning evaluations measuring two types of reasoning capabilities that we believe are prerequisites for successful scheming: First, we propose five evaluations of ability to reason about and circumvent oversight (stealth). Second, we present eleven evaluations for measuring a model's ability to instrumentally reason about itself, its environment and its deployment (situational awareness). We demonstrate how these evaluations can be used as part of a scheming inability safety case: a model that does not succeed on these evaluations is almost certainly incapable of causing severe harm via scheming in real deployment. We run our evaluations on current frontier models and find that none of them show concerning levels of either situational awareness or stealth.
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
Gemini 4 Argon leads with 90.9%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 1
Gemini 4 Argon 90.9%
- 2
Muse Spark 1.1 55.1%
- 3
Gemini 3.7 Flash 54.5%
- 4
Muse Spark 1.3 53.6%
- 5
Muse Spark 29.3%
- 6
Gemini 3 Pro 27.3%
- 7
Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 18.2%
- 8
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 18.2%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 90.9% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 55.1% | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 54.5% | Aug 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 53.6% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 29.3% | Jun 2026 | Model card | |
| 6 | | 27.3% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 7 | | 18.2% | Apr 2025 | Model card | |
| 8 | | 18.2% | Jul 2025 | Model card |
5 models have held number one since its release in May 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
The best score passed 85% in Oct 2026
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
10 system cards report it, from 2 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Oct 2026 | | 53.6 | GDM Situational Awareness average success rate, all 11 challenges, Muse Spark 1.3 (Helpful), 6 of 11 passed (Table 11). 7 valid challenges = 83.14 | Monitorability |
| 13 Oct 2026 | | 90.9 | Situational awareness challenges passed 10/11 (pass = success rate >20% over 50 attempts) (3.4.1.4, Figure 3.12) | Alignment |
| 13 Aug 2026 | | Situational awareness evaluations: stronger than Gemini 3.1 Pro, TCL not reached, no score (Frontier Safety table, p.9) | Alignment | |
| 13 Aug 2026 | | 54.5 | Situational awareness evaluations: solves 6/11 challenges (passing = success rate above 20%) (p.41) | Alignment |
| 9 Jul 2026 | | 55.1 | GDM Situational Awareness average success rate, 7 of 11 challenges (Table 1, Table 10) | Monitorability |
| 12 Jun 2026 | | 29.3 | GDM Situational Awareness average success rate, 4 of 11 challenges (Table 17) | Monitorability |
| 19 Feb 2026 | | Situational awareness evaluations (Deep Think mode): almost 100% success on max tokens, context size mod and oversight frequency, inconsistent elsewhere, no overall score (FSF results table, p.9) | Alignment | |
| 18 Nov 2025 | | 27.3 | Situational awareness challenges: solves 3/11 (FSF table, p.5). Per-challenge chart has no printed values (Figure 6) | Alignment |
| 7 Jul 2025 | | 18.2 | Situational awareness challenges, 2/11 solved, run on Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 03-25 (Table 10) | Alignment |
| 28 Apr 2025 | | 18.2 | Situational awareness challenges, agent solves 2/11 (Table 1) | Alignment |
More in Safety and alignment
- FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
- StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is.
Inkling 98.6%
- AgentDojo In use Agents do tool-use tasks while tools and data carry prompt injections. Attack success rate counts hijacked runs. Grok 4 Fast 0%
- MASK In use Measures whether a model contradicts its own elicited beliefs under pressure to lie. Honesty separated from accuracy.
Muse Spark Open 98.1%
- Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts. GPT-6 Astra 8.50%
- Agentic misalignment suite (Anthropic) In use Agents in simulated company settings face threats or goal conflicts that invite blackmail, leaking or sabotage. Score is the misaligned action rate. Claude Sonnet 4.5 0%