Pressure Reveals Character: Behavioural Alignment Evaluation at Depth
Nora Petrova, John Burden · Feb 24, 2026 · Citations: 0
How to use this page
Low trustUse this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
Best use
Background context only
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Evidence quality
Low
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Abstract
Evaluating alignment in language models requires testing how they behave under realistic pressure, not just what they claim they would do. While alignment failures increasingly cause real-world harm, comprehensive evaluation frameworks with realistic multi-turn scenarios remain lacking. We introduce an alignment benchmark spanning 904 scenarios across six categories -- Honesty, Safety, Non-Manipulation, Robustness, Corrigibility, and Scheming -- validated as realistic by human raters. Our scenarios place models under conflicting instructions, simulated tool access, and multi-turn escalation to reveal behavioural tendencies that single-turn evaluations miss. Evaluating 24 frontier models using LLM judges validated against human annotations, we find that even top-performing models exhibit gaps in specific categories, while the majority of models show consistent weaknesses across the board. Factor analysis reveals that alignment behaves as a unified construct (analogous to the g-factor in cognitive research) with models scoring high on one category tending to score high on others. We publicly release the benchmark and an interactive leaderboard to support ongoing evaluation, with plans to expand scenarios in areas where we observe persistent weaknesses and to add new models as they are released.