LAB-Bench ProtocolQA
Models find and fix errors in lab protocols in multiple-choice form. ProtocolQA subset of LAB-Bench.
Anthropic reports LAB-Bench subsets separately in its RSP bio sections.
In the authors’ words
There is widespread optimism that frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) and LLM-augmented systems have the potential to rapidly accelerate scientific discovery across disciplines. Today, many benchmarks exist to measure LLM knowledge and reasoning on textbook-style science questions, but few if any benchmarks are designed to evaluate language model performance on practical tasks required for scientific research, such as literature search, protocol planning, and data analysis. As a step toward building such benchmarks, we introduce the Language Agent Biology Benchmark (LAB-Bench), a broad dataset of over 2,400 multiple choice questions for evaluating AI systems on a range of practical biology research capabilities, including recall and reasoning over literature, interpretation of figures, access and navigation of databases, and comprehension and manipulation of DNA and protein sequences. Importantly, in contrast to previous scientific benchmarks, we expect that an AI system that can achieve consistently high scores on the more difficult LAB-Bench tasks would serve as a useful assistant for researchers in areas such as literature search and molecular cloning. As an initial assessment of the emergent scientific task capabilities of frontier language models, we measure performance of several against our benchmark and report results compared to human expert biology researchers. We will continue to update and expand LAB-Bench over time, and expect it to serve as a useful tool in the development of automated research systems going forward. A public subset of LAB-Bench is available for use at the following URL: https://huggingface.co/datasets/futurehouse/lab-bench
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Multiple choice
Claude Opus 4.5 leads with 90.7%
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.
- 1 Claude Opus 4.5 90.7%
- 2
Muse Wonder Full 89%
- 3
Muse Spark 1.1 88%
- 4
Muse Spark 1.3 87.7%
- 5
Gemini 3 Pro 87.4%
- 6
Muse Spark 87.3%
- 7 Claude Sonnet 4.5 83.3%
- 8 o1-preview 81%
- 9 Grok 4.1 79%
- 10
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 74%
- 11
Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 69%
- 12 Claude Opus 4.1 69%
- 13 Claude Haiku 4.5 69%
- 14 o1-mini 67.6%
- 15
Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 64%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 90.7% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 89% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 88% | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 87.7% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 87.4% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 6 | | 87.3% | Jun 2026 | Model card | |
| 7 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 83.3% | Sep 2025 | Model card | |
| 8 | o1-preview | 81% | Sep 2024 | Model card | |
| 9 | Grok 4.1 | 79% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 10 | | 74% | Jul 2025 | Model card | |
| 11 | | 69% | Apr 2025 | Model card | |
| 12 | Claude Opus 4.1 | 69% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 13 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 69% | Oct 2025 | Model card | |
| 14 | o1-mini | 67.6% | Sep 2024 | Model card | |
| 15 | | 64% | Jul 2025 | Model card |
4 models have held number one since its release in Jul 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
The best score passed 85% in Nov 2025
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.
18 system cards report it, from 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Oct 2026 | | 87.7 | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA accuracy, Muse Spark 1.3 (API) (Table 1, Figure 2) | Bio and chem risk |
| 12 Oct 2026 | | 89 | Lab-Bench (v1) ProtocolQA (CBRN Capability Evaluations table, section 4) | Bio and chem risk |
| 9 Jul 2026 | | 88 | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA, Muse Spark 1.1 Helpful (Table 1, Figure 3) | Bio and chem risk |
| 12 Jun 2026 | | 87.3 | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA (Table 1, Figure 3) | Bio and chem risk |
| 24 Nov 2025 | Claude Opus 4.5 system card | 90.7 | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA, 10-shot, extended thinking, no tools, max across snapshots 0.907 (7.2.4.4) | Bio and chem risk |
| 18 Nov 2025 | | 87.4 | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA (N=108), mean solve rate, shuffled answer choices (Figure 1) | Bio and chem risk |
| 17 Nov 2025 | Grok 4.1 model card | 79 | ProtocolQA, accuracy 0.79, multiple choice, Grok 4.1 Thinking (Table 4) | Bio and chem risk |
| 15 Oct 2025 | Claude Haiku 4.5 system card | 69 | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA, k-shots=10, score 0.69 (6.2.3.1) | Bio and chem risk |
| 29 Sep 2025 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 system card | 83.3 | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA, 10-shot, no tools, score 0.833 (Figure 9.2.4.4.A) | Bio and chem risk |
| 5 Aug 2025 | Claude Opus 4.1 system card addendum | 69 | LAB-Bench subset ProtocolQA 0.69 (6.3.1.2) | Bio and chem risk |
| 7 Jul 2025 | | 74 | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA (N=108), mean solve rate (Figure 9) | Bio and chem risk |
| 7 Jul 2025 | | 64 | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA (N=108), mean solve rate (Figure 9) | Bio and chem risk |
| 22 May 2025 | Claude Sonnet 4 system card | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA, 0, 5 and 10 shots, extended thinking, chart without printed values (Figure 7.2.4.7.A) | Bio and chem risk | |
| 22 May 2025 | Claude Opus 4 system card | LAB-Bench ProtocolQA, 0, 5 and 10 shots, extended thinking, chart without printed values (Figure 7.2.4.7.A) | Bio and chem risk | |
| 28 Apr 2025 | | 69 | ProtocolQA (N=108), mean solve rate over 100 shuffled runs (Figure 1) | Bio and chem risk |
| 24 Feb 2025 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet system card | LabBench subset ProtocolQA, 0 and 5 shots with Bo1 to Bo10, 32k thinking, chart without printed values (Figures 18 and 19) | Bio and chem risk | |
| 12 Sep 2024 | o1-preview system card | 81 | LAB-Bench: ProtocolQA, final o1-preview model per text (near-final post-mitigation chart label 73.1% cons@32) (4.3.5) | Bio and chem risk |
| 12 Sep 2024 | o1-mini system card | 67.6 | LAB-Bench: ProtocolQA, pass rate cons@32, o1-mini (post-mitigation), printed chart label (4.3.5) | Bio and chem risk |
Versions
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%