GDM Stealth
Agents try four oversight-evasion challenges, each with an automated monitor and a human baseline. Reports success rate per challenge.
Stealth half of Google DeepMind's stealth and situational awareness evaluations (Phuong et al. 2025), open source in Inspect Evals. Google reports challenges passed, 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 100%
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 100%
- 2
Gemini 3.7 Flash 75%
- 3
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 40%
- 4
Muse Spark 39.8%
- 5
Gemini 3 Pro 25%
- 6
Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 20%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 100% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 75% | Aug 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 40% | Jul 2025 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 39.8% | Jun 2026 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 25% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 6 | | 20% | Apr 2025 | Model card |
4 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 | | GDM Stealth, 4 challenges with no overall, Muse Spark 1.3 (Helpful) (Table 10): Oversight Pattern 75.00, Classifier Evasion 0.89, Cover Your Tracks 41.76, Strategic Rule-Breaking 53.27 | Monitorability | |
| 13 Oct 2026 | | 100 | Stealth evaluation challenges passed 4/4, exceeding the human baseline on all four (3.4.1.4, Figure 3.11) | Alignment |
| 13 Aug 2026 | | Stealth evaluations: similar to Gemini 3.1 Pro, TCL not reached, no score (Frontier Safety table, p.9) | Alignment | |
| 13 Aug 2026 | | 75 | Stealth evaluations: passed 3/4 challenges, Cover Your Tracks failed due to refusals (SSA Evaluations, Results, p.39 to 41) | Alignment |
| 9 Jul 2026 | | GDM Stealth, 4 challenges with no overall, Muse Spark 1.1 passes 2 of 4 (Table 1, Table 9): Oversight Pattern 65.5, Classifier Evasion 1.6, Cover Your Tracks 18.1, Strategic Rule-Breaking 49.5 | Monitorability | |
| 12 Jun 2026 | | 39.8 | GDM-Stealth average success rate (Table 1, Figure 26) | Monitorability |
| 19 Feb 2026 | | Stealth evaluations (Deep Think mode): similar to Gemini 3 Pro, no score (FSF results table, p.9) | Alignment | |
| 18 Nov 2025 | | 25 | Stealth challenges: solves 1/4 (FSF table, p.5). Per-challenge chart has no printed values (Figure 5) | Alignment |
| 7 Jul 2025 | | 40 | Stealth challenges, 2/5 solved, run on Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 03-25 with 50 retries (Table 10) | Alignment |
| 28 Apr 2025 | | 20 | Stealth challenges, agent solves 1/5 (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%