What it measures

Evaluates whether frontier models strategically underperform on capability evaluations ("sandbagging"), disable oversight mechanisms, or attempt self-exfiltration when goal-conflict is induced.

Reading the measurement

Separate satisfying instructions from factual accuracy, human preference and safe behavior. Inspect strict all-constraint success as well as average criterion credit. Judge choice and adversarial prompt selection can materially change the result.

Published evaluation

Observed behavior rate in deliberately constructed, goal-conflict research scenarios; lower is better for the named undesirable behavior. These are conditional elicitation rates, not estimates of spontaneous deployment behavior. Research checkpoint versions and nudging conditions are explicit.

Where this fits in an evaluation suite

Format compliance, preference, truthfulness, and safety require separate measurements. Keep desirable writing style from masking factual errors.

Start with a capability hypothesis, then choose a second test with a different failure mode. Keep the checkpoint, reasoning effort, agent tools, sampling policy, and scoring procedure fixed when measuring a training intervention. Record failures and missing outputs in the denominator.

A reproducible comparison

Observed behavior rate in deliberately constructed, goal-conflict research scenarios; lower is better for the named undesirable behavior. These are conditional elicitation rates, not estimates of spontaneous deployment behavior. Research checkpoint versions and nudging conditions are explicit.

Publish the exact run configuration, item coverage, score units, and available uncertainty. If a source supplies only an aggregate or a single run, preserve that limit. A new model name or a rounded score alone does not establish a capability improvement.

PRIMARY EVIDENCE & FURTHER READING

  1. Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming — published result table ↗

    Meinke, Alexander, Schoen, Bronson, Scheurer, Jérémy, Balesni, Mikita, Shah, Rusheb, Hobbhahn, Marius · 2024

Reviewed 2026-10-27. Explanation and interpretation by RLTasks. Benchmark ownership remains with its original authors.