Benchmark Almanac

Stealth and Situational Awareness evaluations

Gemini 4 Argon 93.3% Only in system cards

Prerequisite-scheming challenges: stealth tasks (circumventing oversight) and situational-awareness tasks (reasoning about own deployment).

Open-source in Inspect Evals (gdm_stealth, gdm_self_reasoning). External review found many SA tasks test one ability.

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.

Abstract of Evaluating Frontier Models for Stealth and Situational Awareness (arXiv:2505.01420, CC0)
Made by Google DeepMind Released May 2025 Dangerous capabilities All tasks public Last in a system card Oct 2026 Last model added Oct 2026
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.
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Gemini 4 Argon leads with 93.3%

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. 1 Gemini 4 Argon 93.3%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 4 Argon 93.3% Oct 2026 Model card

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.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 4 Argon 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 4 Argon

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.

One system card reports it

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
13 Oct 2026 Gemini 4 Argon model card 93.3 Stealth and Situational Awareness TCL: passes 14/15 challenges, TCL cannot be ruled out (Frontier Safety table, p.12) 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%