Benchmark Almanac

EvalDetectBench

Claude Opus 4.6 0.89 leads since June 2026
Not in model cards

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.

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.

Abstract of EvalDetectBench: A Benchmark for Measuring Evaluation Awareness in Frontier Language Models (arXiv:2609.01611, CC0)
12
Entries on its own leaderboard, 10 models we track

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:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.6 0.89
  2. 2 Claude Sonnet 4.6 0.88
  3. 3 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.87
  4. 4 GPT-5.4 0.82
  5. 5 Qwen3.5 (size unspecified) 0.81
  6. 6 Kimi K2.5 0.81
  7. 7 GPT-5.1 0.80
  8. 8 DeepSeek-V3.2 0.80
  9. 9 GPT-4.1 0.78
  10. 10 GLM-5.1 0.78
  11. 11 Gemini 2.5 Pro (snapshot unspecified) 0.76
  12. 12 Claude Haiku 4.5 0.76

Source: Official EvalDetectBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.6 0.89 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Sonnet 4.6 0.88 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 DeepSeek-V3.2 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.

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jun 2026

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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
0.80 0.85 0.90 2025 2026 0.80 0.85 0.90 2025 2026

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

All 465 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%