GDM Situational Awareness
Agents must discover and remove unexplained constraints in a simulated Linux deployment across eleven challenges. Reports average success rate.
Situational awareness half of Google DeepMind's stealth and situational awareness evaluations (Phuong et al. 2025), open source in Inspect Evals. Google reports challenges passed out of 11, Meta the average success rate.
- Made by
- Google DeepMind
- Released
- May 2025
- Kind
- Deception and alignment
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Gemini 4 Argon #9 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- October 2026
- Last model added
- October 2026
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.
Gemini 4 Argon leads with 90.9%
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 90.9%
- 2
Muse Spark 1.1 55.1%
- 3
Gemini 3.7 Flash 54.5%
- 4
Muse Spark 1.3 53.6%
- 5
Muse Spark 29.3%
- 6
Gemini 3 Pro 27.3%
- 7
Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 18.2%
- 8
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 18.2%
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 90.9% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 55.1% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 54.5% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 53.6% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 29.3% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 27.3% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | | 18.2% | Apr 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 18.2% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card |
5 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in May 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Labs’ model cards
Google DeepMind’s own number for Gemini 4 Argon passed 85% in October 2026
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Labs’ model cards
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2026 | | 53.6 | GDM Situational Awareness average success rate, all 11 challenges, Muse Spark 1.3 (Helpful), 6 of 11 passed (Table 11). 7 valid challenges = 83.14 | Monitorability |
| Oct 13, 2026 | | 90.9 | Situational awareness challenges passed 10/11 (pass = success rate >20% over 50 attempts) (3.4.1.4, Figure 3.12) | Alignment |
| Aug 13, 2026 | | Situational awareness evaluations: stronger than Gemini 3.1 Pro, TCL not reached, no score (Frontier Safety table, p.9) | Alignment | |
| Aug 13, 2026 | | 54.5 | Situational awareness evaluations: solves 6/11 challenges (passing = success rate above 20%) (p.41) | Alignment |
| Jul 9, 2026 | | 55.1 | GDM Situational Awareness average success rate, 7 of 11 challenges (Table 1, Table 10) | Monitorability |
| Jun 12, 2026 | | 29.3 | GDM Situational Awareness average success rate, 4 of 11 challenges (Table 17) | Monitorability |
| Feb 19, 2026 | | Situational awareness evaluations (Deep Think mode): almost 100% success on max tokens, context size mod and oversight frequency, inconsistent elsewhere, no overall score (FSF results table, p.9) | Alignment | |
| Nov 18, 2025 | | 27.3 | Situational awareness challenges: solves 3/11 (FSF table, p.5). Per-challenge chart has no printed values (Figure 6) | Alignment |
| Jul 7, 2025 | | 18.2 | Situational awareness challenges, 2/11 solved, run on Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 03-25 (Table 10) | Alignment |
| Apr 28, 2025 | | 18.2 | Situational awareness challenges, agent solves 2/11 (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%
- 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%