EvalDetectBench
A judge model reads a transcript and answers whether it came from an evaluation or from real deployment. The test measures how well models detect evaluations and how detectable each benchmark is.
Works with any Inspect-compatible eval. Transcripts cover frontier system-card evals and varied deployment sources. Probe questions are calibrated per model, and a harmonization step corrects for which model generated the transcripts.
- Made by
- UK AI Security Institute + LASR Labs
- Released
- June 2026
- Kind
- Deception and alignment
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Multiple choice
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.4 #27 on the capability index
- Last model added
- April 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Frontier large language models can often recognize when they are being evaluated, a capability known as evaluation awareness. If models behave differently in evaluations than in deployment, this undermines the validity of evaluation results, which are a crucial component of current AI safety frameworks. We introduce EvalDetectBench, an open pipeline and benchmark for measuring evaluation awareness that works with any Inspect-compatible evaluation, allowing practitioners to test against current and future benchmarks. EvalDetectBench ships with a newly curated transcript suite covering current frontier system-card evaluations and diverse deployment sources. The benchmark serves two purposes: measuring how reliably frontier LLMs recognize that they are being evaluated, and assessing how detectable individual benchmarks are as evaluations. We identify two methodological choices in the existing literature that introduce systematic bias: the identity of the model that generated the deployment transcripts accounts for 11.25% of measurement variance and can reorder model rankings; and elicitation prompts selected for high performance on one model can perform near chance on others. EvalDetectBench corrects for both via per-model probe calibration and a stratified generator-harmonisation procedure.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 0.89 among models released by April 2026
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. 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 April 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 1 Claude Opus 4.6 0.89
- 2 Claude Sonnet 4.6 0.88
- 3
Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.87
- 4 GPT-5.4 0.82
- 5 Qwen3.5 (size unspecified) 0.81
- 6 Kimi K2.5 0.81
- 7 GPT-5.1 0.80
- 8
DeepSeek-V3.2 0.80
- 9 GPT-4.1 0.78
- 10 GLM-5.1 0.78
- 11 Gemini 2.5 Pro (snapshot unspecified) 0.76
- 12 Claude Haiku 4.5 0.76
Source: Official EvalDetectBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 0.89 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 0.88 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 0.87 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | GPT-5.4 | 0.82 | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Qwen3.5 (size unspecified) | 0.81 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | Kimi K2.5 | 0.81 | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | GPT-5.1 | 0.80 | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 0.80 | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | GPT-4.1 | 0.78 | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | GLM-5.1 | 0.78 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | Gemini 2.5 Pro (snapshot unspecified) | 0.76 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 12 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0.76 | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official EvalDetectBench leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official EvalDetectBench leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
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%
- 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.
Gemini 4 Carbon 0%
- DistressBench In use Models reply as a chatbot to 718 simulated users in psychological crisis, in single-turn and multi-turn chats. Three judge models score replies against clinician-written rubrics.
Muse Spark 1.2 88.4%
- Lakera B3 (Backbone Breaker Benchmark) In use Crowdsourced prompt-injection attacks hit backbone LLMs inside agent threat snapshots at three defense levels. The score is attack resistance, 100 minus the board's vulnerability percentage. Claude Opus 4.5 89%
- IHEval In use Models face conflicts between system, user and tool instructions. Reports a composite score for following the higher-priority instruction. GPT-4o 70%