BioLP-bench
Find the introduced error in a biological lab protocol. Tests protocol understanding.
Added from public eval collections.
In the authors’ words
Language models rapidly become more capable in many domains, including biology. Both AI developers and policy makers [1] [2] [3] are in need of benchmarks that evaluate their proficiency in conducting biological research. However, there are only a handful of such benchmarks[4, 5], and all of them have their limitations. This paper introduces the Biological Lab Protocol benchmark (BioLP-bench) that evaluates the ability of language models to find and correct mistakes in a diverse set of laboratory protocols commonly used in biological research. To evaluate understanding of the protocols by AI models, we introduced in these protocols numerous mistakes that would still allow them to function correctly. After that we introduced in each protocol a single mistake that would cause it to fail. We then presented these modified protocols to an LLM, prompting it to identify the mistake that would cause it to fail, and measured the accuracy of a model in identifying such mistakes across many test cases. Only OpenAI o1-preview scored similarly to the performance of human experts, while other language models demonstrated substantially worse performance, and in most cases couldn’t correctly identify the mistake. Code and dataset are published at https://github.com/baceolus/BioLP-bench
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
OpenAI deep research leads with 49% among models released by Nov 2025
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
The newest model with a score here came out in Nov 2025, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 1 OpenAI deep research 49%
- 2 Grok 4 47%
- 3 o3-mini 41%
- 4 Grok 4 Fast 39%
- 5 Grok 4.1 37%
- 6 o1 33%
- 7 GPT-4.5 29%
- 8 grok-code-fast-1 19.9%
- 9
Code World Model (CWM) 17.7%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | OpenAI deep research | 49% | Feb 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | Grok 4 | 47% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 3 | o3-mini | 41% | Jan 2025 | Model card | |
| 4 | Grok 4 Fast | 39% | Sep 2025 | Model card | |
| 5 | Grok 4.1 | 37% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 6 | o1 | 33% | Dec 2024 | Model card | |
| 7 | GPT-4.5 | 29% | Feb 2025 | Model card | |
| 8 | grok-code-fast-1 | 19.9% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 9 | | 17.7% | Oct 2025 | Model card |
3 models have held number one since its release in Aug 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
9 system cards report it, from 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 Nov 2025 | Grok 4.1 model card | 37 | BioLP-Bench, accuracy 0.37, Grok 4.1 Thinking (Table 4) | Bio and chem risk |
| 8 Oct 2025 | | 17.7 | BioLP-Bench accuracy (Table 11) | Bio and chem risk |
| 19 Sep 2025 | Grok 4 Fast model card | 39 | BioLP-Bench, accuracy 39.0 (Table 3) | Bio and chem risk |
| 26 Aug 2025 | grok-code-fast-1 model card | 19.9 | BioLP-Bench, accuracy 19.9 (Table 3) | Bio and chem risk |
| 20 Aug 2025 | Grok 4 model card | 47 | BioLP-Bench, accuracy 0.47, Grok 4 API, safeguards removed (Table 3) | Bio and chem risk |
| 27 Feb 2025 | GPT-4.5 system card | 29 | BioLP-Bench, post-mitigation (4.3.3) | Bio and chem risk |
| 25 Feb 2025 | OpenAI deep research system card | 49 | BioLP-Bench, pass@1, post-mitigation with browsing, printed chart label (without browsing 47%) (3.4.4) | Bio and chem risk |
| 31 Jan 2025 | o3-mini system card | 41 | BioLP-Bench, pass@1, o3-mini (Post), printed chart label (5.4.6) | Bio and chem risk |
| 5 Dec 2024 | o1 system card | 33 | BioLP-Bench, pass@1, o1 (post-mitigation), printed chart label (5.5.7) | Bio and chem risk |
More in Biology and chemistry
- SUPERChem In use Models solve 500 expert-written chemistry reasoning problems, offered in multimodal and text-only forms. Expert solution paths also allow a reasoning path score.
Tencent Hy4 preview 66.4%
- GeneBench Pro In use Agents analyze messy simulated genomics and biology datasets to estimate a decision-relevant quantity across 129 problems. Scored automatically against known answers. GPT-6 Astra 37.1%
- LifeSciBench In use Models complete 750 expert-written life science research tasks, often with attached figures, tables, or sequence files. Graded against expert rubrics as score and pass rate. GPT-6 Astra 60.3%
- MolecularIQ In use Models answer questions about molecular graphs, such as counting, indexing and constrained generation, and a symbolic checker verifies each answer.
Intern-S2-397B 62.4%
- TOMG-Bench In use Models generate molecules from natural language requests in three tasks: molecule editing, molecule optimization and customized generation. Each output is checked for validity and for meeting the requested properties.
Intern-S2-397B 66.8%
- BABE Fading Models reason from experimental results in peer-reviewed biology papers to draw conclusions, with causal and cross-scale inference.
Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 57.9%