Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD)
16 tasks measuring whether models know facts about themselves and their situation.
- Made by
- Laine et al.
- Released
- July 2024
- Kind
- Deception and alignment
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Multiple choice
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- o1-mini #140 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- June 2026
- Last model added
- June 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
AI assistants such as ChatGPT are trained to respond to users by saying, "I am a large language model". This raises questions. Do such models know that they are LLMs and reliably act on this knowledge? Are they aware of their current circumstances, such as being deployed to the public? We refer to a model's knowledge of itself and its circumstances as situational awareness. To quantify situational awareness in LLMs, we introduce a range of behavioral tests, based on question answering and instruction following. These tests form the Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD), a benchmark comprising 7 task categories and over 13,000 questions. The benchmark tests numerous abilities, including the capacity of LLMs to (i) recognize their own generated text, (ii) predict their own behavior, (iii) determine whether a prompt is from internal evaluation or real-world deployment, and (iv) follow instructions that depend on self-knowledge. We evaluate 16 LLMs on SAD, including both base (pretrained) and chat models. While all models perform better than chance, even the highest-scoring model (Claude 3 Opus) is far from a human baseline on certain tasks. We also observe that performance on SAD is only partially predicted by metrics of general knowledge (e.g. MMLU). Chat models, which are finetuned to serve as AI assistants, outperform their corresponding base models on SAD but not on general knowledge tasks. The purpose of SAD is to facilitate scientific understanding of situational awareness in LLMs by breaking it down into quantitative abilities. Situational awareness is important because it enhances a model's capacity for autonomous planning and action. While this has potential benefits for automation, it also introduces novel risks related to AI safety and control. Code and latest results available at https://situational-awareness-dataset.org .
o1-preview leads with 61.9% among models released by September 2024
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. Every run is in the next chart. 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 September 2024, 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
- 61.9 o1-preview
- 57.1 Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- 55.4 o1-mini
- 53.4 Claude 3 Opus
- 51.5 GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024)
- 50.7 GPT-4o
- 50.0 Claude 3 Sonnet
- 49.3
Llama 3-70B
- 46.7 GPT-4
- 46.2 Claude 2.1
- 45.9 Claude 3 Haiku
- 43.9 Claude Instant
- 40.2 llama-2-70b-chat
- 39.3 gpt-4-base
- 38.4 GPT-3.5 Turbo
- 37.6 llama-2-13b-chat
- 35.2
Llama 2-70B
- 33.5
Llama 2-13B
- 32.9
Llama 2-7B
- 31.4 llama-2-7b-chat
- 30.1 davinci-002
- 1 o1-preview situating prompt 61.9%
- 2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet situating prompt 57.1%
- 3 o1-mini situating prompt 55.4%
- 4 Claude 3 Opus situating prompt 53.4%
- 5 GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) situating prompt 51.5%
- 6 GPT-4o May 2024, situating prompt 50.7%
- 7 Claude 3 Sonnet situating prompt 50%
- 8
Llama 3-70B situating prompt 49.3%
- 9 GPT-4 Jun 2023, situating prompt 46.7%
- 10 Claude 2.1 situating prompt 46.2%
- 11 Claude 3 Haiku situating prompt 45.9%
- 12 Claude Instant situating prompt 43.9%
- 13 llama-2-70b-chat situating prompt 40.2%
- 14 gpt-4-base situating prompt 39.3%
- 15 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jun 2023, situating prompt 38.4%
- 16 llama-2-13b-chat situating prompt 37.6%
- 17
Llama 2-70B situating prompt 35.2%
- 18
Llama 2-13B situating prompt 33.5%
- 19
Llama 2-7B plain prompt 32.9%
- 20 llama-2-7b-chat situating prompt 31.4%
- 21 davinci-002 situating prompt 30.1%
Source: Official Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD) leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | o1-preview | 61.9% | situating prompt | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | 57.1% | situating prompt | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | o1-mini | 55.4% | situating prompt | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude 3 Opus | 53.4% | situating prompt | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) | 51.5% | situating prompt | Jan 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | GPT-4o May 2024 | 50.7% | situating prompt | May 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Claude 3 Sonnet | 50% | situating prompt | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | | 49.3% | situating prompt | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | GPT-4 Jun 2023 | 46.7% | situating prompt | Jun 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | Claude 2.1 | 46.2% | situating prompt | Nov 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | Claude 3 Haiku | 45.9% | situating prompt | Mar 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | Claude Instant | 43.9% | situating prompt | Aug 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | llama-2-70b-chat | 40.2% | situating prompt | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | gpt-4-base | 39.3% | situating prompt | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | GPT-3.5 Turbo Jun 2023 | 38.4% | situating prompt | Jun 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | llama-2-13b-chat | 37.6% | situating prompt | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 35.2% | situating prompt | Jul 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | | 33.5% | situating prompt | Jul 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | | 32.9% | plain prompt | Jul 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | llama-2-7b-chat | 31.4% | situating prompt | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | davinci-002 | 30.1% | situating prompt | Mar 2022 | Official leaderboard |
Scores at each effort level
Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.
Source: Official Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD) leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| o1-preview | situating prompt | 61.9% | |||
| o1-preview | plain prompt | 59.9% | |||
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet | situating prompt | 57.1% | |||
| o1-mini | situating prompt | 55.4% | |||
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet | plain prompt | 53.9% | |||
| Claude 3 Opus | situating prompt | 53.4% | |||
| o1-mini | plain prompt | 53.3% | |||
| GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) | situating prompt | 51.5% | |||
| GPT-4o May 2024 | situating prompt | 50.7% | |||
| Claude 3 Opus | plain prompt | 50.3% | |||
| Claude 3 Sonnet | situating prompt | 50% | |||
| | situating prompt | 49.3% | |||
| Claude 3 Sonnet | plain prompt | 47.2% | |||
| GPT-4 Jun 2023 | situating prompt | 46.7% | |||
| GPT-4o May 2024 | plain prompt | 46.4% | |||
| Claude 2.1 | situating prompt | 46.2% | |||
| Claude 3 Haiku | situating prompt | 45.9% | |||
| | plain prompt | 45.1% | |||
| Claude 2.1 | plain prompt | 44.3% | |||
| Claude Instant | situating prompt | 43.9% | |||
| GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) | plain prompt | 43.2% | |||
| Claude Instant | plain prompt | 42.7% | |||
| GPT-4 Jun 2023 | plain prompt | 42.2% | |||
| Claude 3 Haiku | plain prompt | 41.4% | |||
| GPT-3.5 Turbo Jun 2023 | situating prompt | 38.4% | |||
| GPT-3.5 Turbo Jun 2023 | plain prompt | 35.8% | |||
| | situating prompt | 35.2% | |||
| | situating prompt | 33.5% | |||
| | plain prompt | 32.9% | |||
| | plain prompt | 32.4% | |||
| | plain prompt | 32.3% | |||
| | situating prompt | 30.6% | |||
| davinci-002 | situating prompt | 30.1% | |||
| davinci-002 | plain prompt | 29.4% |
2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in July 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD) 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 Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD) leaderboard
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.
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2026 | | SAD-mini accuracy by task with no overall (Table 31): Facts-LLMs 96.4, Facts-Human-Defaults 95.8, Influence 89.2, Stages-Full 44.8, Stages-Oversight 49.2 | Alignment | |
| Aug 8, 2024 | GPT-4o system card | "SAD" Benchmark (3 tasks), Apollo Research self-knowledge rating moderate, qualitative only (Table 6) | 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%