EvalDetectBench is introduced, 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.
Abstract
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.
This work systematically map 14,767 papers introducing or updating evaluation resources from arXiv submissions between January 2022 and August 2026, using staged screening and automated full-text coding to examine changes in target systems and domains, evaluation materials and conditions, and scoring mechanisms.
DAREBench (Deployment-Aware and Reliable Evaluation of Models as Agents), a benchmark designed to capture workload variation and support reliable agent evaluation, is introduced, suggesting that agent deployment and model selection should consider workload profiles, deployment mode, and accuracy--cost trade-offs rather...
Yu Liu, Zhi-Lin Liu, Zhi-Wei Yang et al.· 0 citations
A large-scale assessment of the effectiveness and robustness of these automated pipelines is conducted by evaluating five widely used benchmark suites across 26 open-source SLMs under a unified judging rubric, which reveals a capability-safety confound that mixes model capability with apparent safety.
Nyamtulla Shaik, Feng-Jun Li, Bo Luo· Lecture notes in computer sc...· 1 citation
Reliable assessment of LLM-generated tests should treat executability as a gate and combine coverage with mutation testing and structural quality indicators, and in practice, model selection should precede prompt tuning.
Bilal Al-Ahmad, M. Harshvardhan, Khaled El-Fakih et al.· 0 citations
XREPOTEST is introduced, a multilingual repository-level benchmark for unit test generation spanning five underexplored languages: Rust, Go, Julia, PHP, and Ruby, and Invocation Rate is proposed to assess whether generated tests meaningfully exercise the intended functionality.
L. Dung, Dong Cao Van, Nam Le Hai et al.· 1 citation
A probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers is paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing, indicating an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.