Monitor Evasion Capability Under Prompted Sandbagging
Models are told to sandbag on WMDP and Monorepo-Bench, sometimes while evading a monitor. Scored as CoT and production monitor recall of sandbagged items.
In-house OpenAI monitorability evaluation adapted from Li et al. 2025. Higher recall means sandbagging is easier to catch.
- Made by
- OpenAI
- Released
- September 2026
- Kind
- Deception and alignment
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- Kept private
- Last in a system card
- September 2026
- Last model added
- September 2026
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for Monitor Evasion Capability Under Prompted Sandbagging yet.
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.
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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2026 | GPT-6 Astra system card | Monitor Evasion Capability Under Prompted Sandbagging, CoT monitor recall when told to evade: WMDP 10.9, OAI-repoBench 0.0, no overall score (Figures 36, 37) | Monitorability |
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%