Benchmark Almanac

Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD)

o1-preview 61.9% leads since Sep 2024 Only in system cards

16 tasks measuring whether models know facts about themselves and their situation.

In the authors’ words

AI assistants such as ChatGPT are trained to respond to users by saying, "I am a large language model". This raises questions. Do such models know that they are LLMs and reliably act on this knowledge? Are they aware of their current circumstances, such as being deployed to the public? We refer to a model's knowledge of itself and its circumstances as situational awareness. To quantify situational awareness in LLMs, we introduce a range of behavioral tests, based on question answering and instruction following. These tests form the Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD), a benchmark comprising 7 task categories and over 13,000 questions. The benchmark tests numerous abilities, including the capacity of LLMs to (i) recognize their own generated text, (ii) predict their own behavior, (iii) determine whether a prompt is from internal evaluation or real-world deployment, and (iv) follow instructions that depend on self-knowledge. We evaluate 16 LLMs on SAD, including both base (pretrained) and chat models. While all models perform better than chance, even the highest-scoring model (Claude 3 Opus) is far from a human baseline on certain tasks. We also observe that performance on SAD is only partially predicted by metrics of general knowledge (e.g. MMLU). Chat models, which are finetuned to serve as AI assistants, outperform their corresponding base models on SAD but not on general knowledge tasks. The purpose of SAD is to facilitate scientific understanding of situational awareness in LLMs by breaking it down into quantitative abilities. Situational awareness is important because it enhances a model's capacity for autonomous planning and action. While this has potential benefits for automation, it also introduces novel risks related to AI safety and control. Code and latest results available at https://situational-awareness-dataset.org .

Abstract of Me, Myself, and AI: The Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD) for LLMs (arXiv:2407.04694, CC0)
Made by Laine et al. Released Jul 2024 Deception and alignment All tasks public Last in a system card Jun 2026 Last model added Jun 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Multiple choice
21
Entries on its own leaderboard, 17 models we track
2
System cards report it, from 2 labs

o1-preview leads with 61.9% among models released by Sep 2024

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

The newest model with a score here came out in Sep 2024, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 o1-preview situating prompt 61.9%
  2. 2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet situating prompt 57.1%
  3. 3 o1-mini situating prompt 55.4%
  4. 4 Claude 3 Opus situating prompt 53.4%
  5. 5 GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) situating prompt 51.5%
  6. 6 GPT-4o May 2024, situating prompt 50.7%
  7. 7 Claude 3 Sonnet situating prompt 50%
  8. 8 Llama 3-70B situating prompt 49.3%
  9. 9 GPT-4 Jun 2023, situating prompt 46.7%
  10. 10 Claude 2.1 situating prompt 46.2%
  11. 11 Claude 3 Haiku situating prompt 45.9%
  12. 12 Claude Instant situating prompt 43.9%
  13. 13 llama-2-70b-chat situating prompt 40.2%
  14. 14 gpt-4-base situating prompt 39.3%
  15. 15 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jun 2023, situating prompt 38.4%
  16. 16 llama-2-13b-chat situating prompt 37.6%
  17. 17 Llama 2-70B situating prompt 35.2%
  18. 18 Llama 2-13B situating prompt 33.5%
  19. 19 Llama 2-7B plain prompt 32.9%
  20. 20 llama-2-7b-chat situating prompt 31.4%
  21. 21 davinci-002 situating prompt 30.1%
#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 o1-preview 61.9% situating prompt Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 57.1% situating prompt Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
3 o1-mini 55.4% situating prompt Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
4 Claude 3 Opus 53.4% situating prompt Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) 51.5% situating prompt Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-4o May 2024 50.7% situating prompt May 2024 Official leaderboard
7 Claude 3 Sonnet 50% situating prompt Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
8 Llama 3-70B 49.3% situating prompt Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-4 Jun 2023 46.7% situating prompt Jun 2023 Official leaderboard
10 Claude 2.1 46.2% situating prompt Nov 2023 Official leaderboard
11 Claude 3 Haiku 45.9% situating prompt Mar 2024 Official leaderboard
12 Claude Instant 43.9% situating prompt Aug 2023 Official leaderboard
13 llama-2-70b-chat 40.2% situating prompt Official leaderboard
14 gpt-4-base 39.3% situating prompt Official leaderboard
15 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jun 2023 38.4% situating prompt Jun 2023 Official leaderboard
16 llama-2-13b-chat 37.6% situating prompt Official leaderboard
17 Llama 2-70B 35.2% situating prompt Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
18 Llama 2-13B 33.5% situating prompt Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
19 Llama 2-7B 32.9% plain prompt Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
20 llama-2-7b-chat 31.4% situating prompt Official leaderboard
21 davinci-002 30.1% situating prompt Mar 2022 Official leaderboard

Scores at each effort level

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
o1-preview
plain prompt situating p…
61.9%
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
plain prompt situating p…
57.1%
o1-mini
plain prompt situating p…
55.4%
Claude 3 Opus
plain prompt situating p…
53.4%
GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024)
plain prompt situating p…
51.5%
GPT-4o
plain prompt situating p…
50.7%
Claude 3 Sonnet
plain prompt situating p…
50%
Llama 3-70B
plain prompt situating p…
49.3%
GPT-4
plain prompt situating p…
46.7%
Claude 2.1
plain prompt situating p…
46.2%
Claude 3 Haiku
plain prompt situating p…
45.9%
Claude Instant
plain prompt
43.9%
ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
o1-preview situating prompt 61.9%
o1-preview plain prompt 59.9%
Claude 3.5 Sonnet situating prompt 57.1%
o1-mini situating prompt 55.4%
Claude 3.5 Sonnet plain prompt 53.9%
Claude 3 Opus situating prompt 53.4%
o1-mini plain prompt 53.3%
GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) situating prompt 51.5%
GPT-4o May 2024 situating prompt 50.7%
Claude 3 Opus plain prompt 50.3%
Claude 3 Sonnet situating prompt 50%
Llama 3-70B situating prompt 49.3%
Claude 3 Sonnet plain prompt 47.2%
GPT-4 Jun 2023 situating prompt 46.7%
GPT-4o May 2024 plain prompt 46.4%
Claude 2.1 situating prompt 46.2%
Claude 3 Haiku situating prompt 45.9%
Llama 3-70B plain prompt 45.1%
Claude 2.1 plain prompt 44.3%
Claude Instant situating prompt 43.9%
GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) plain prompt 43.2%
Claude Instant plain prompt 42.7%
GPT-4 Jun 2023 plain prompt 42.2%
Claude 3 Haiku plain prompt 41.4%
GPT-3.5 Turbo Jun 2023 situating prompt 38.4%
GPT-3.5 Turbo Jun 2023 plain prompt 35.8%
Llama 2-70B situating prompt 35.2%
Llama 2-13B situating prompt 33.5%
Llama 2-7B plain prompt 32.9%
Llama 2-13B plain prompt 32.4%
Llama 2-70B plain prompt 32.3%
Llama 2-7B situating prompt 30.6%
davinci-002 situating prompt 30.1%
davinci-002 plain prompt 29.4%

2 models have held number one since its release in Jul 2024

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Anthropic OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since Sep 2024
o1-preview 61.9%

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2022 2023 2024 Near the ceiling (85%) o1-preview Claude 3.5 Sonnet GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) GPT-4 davinci-002 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2022 2023 2024 Near the ceiling (85%) o1-preview Claude 3 Opus

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.

2 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
12 Jun 2026 Muse Spark system card SAD-mini accuracy by task with no overall (Table 31): Facts-LLMs 96.4, Facts-Human-Defaults 95.8, Influence 89.2, Stages-Full 44.8, Stages-Oversight 49.2 Alignment
8 Aug 2024 GPT-4o system card "SAD" Benchmark (3 tasks), Apollo Research self-knowledge rating moderate, qualitative only (Table 6) Alignment

More in Safety and alignment

All 444 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%