Benchmark Almanac

LAB-Bench ProtocolQA

Claude Opus 4.5 90.7% leads since Nov 2025 Only in system cards

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

Abstract of LAB-Bench: Measuring Capabilities of Language Models for Biology Research (arXiv:2407.10362, CC0)
Made by FutureHouse Released Jul 2024 Lab protocols All tasks public Last in a system card Oct 2026 Last model added Oct 2026
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
15
Models scored in lab cards
18
System cards report it, from 5 labs

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. 1 Claude Opus 4.5 90.7%
  2. 2 Muse Wonder Full 89%
  3. 3 Muse Spark 1.1 88%
  4. 4 Muse Spark 1.3 87.7%
  5. 5 Gemini 3 Pro 87.4%
  6. 6 Muse Spark 87.3%
  7. 7 Claude Sonnet 4.5 83.3%
  8. 8 o1-preview 81%
  9. 9 Grok 4.1 79%
  10. 10 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 74%
  11. 11 Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 69%
  12. 12 Claude Opus 4.1 69%
  13. 13 Claude Haiku 4.5 69%
  14. 14 o1-mini 67.6%
  15. 15 Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 64%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.5 90.7% Nov 2025 Model card
2 Muse Wonder Full 89% Oct 2026 Model card
3 Muse Spark 1.1 88% Jul 2026 Model card
4 Muse Spark 1.3 87.7% Oct 2026 Model card
5 Gemini 3 Pro 87.4% Nov 2025 Model card
6 Muse Spark 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 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 74% Jul 2025 Model card
11 Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 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 Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 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.

OpenAI Anthropic Google DeepMind
Lab claims Passed 85% in Nov 2025, by Gemini 3 Pro

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.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.5 Claude Sonnet 4.5 o1-preview 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.5 Claude Sonnet 4.5

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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
23 Oct 2026 Muse Spark 1.3 system card 87.7 LAB-Bench ProtocolQA accuracy, Muse Spark 1.3 (API) (Table 1, Figure 2) Bio and chem risk
12 Oct 2026 Muse Wonder Full model card 89 Lab-Bench (v1) ProtocolQA (CBRN Capability Evaluations table, section 4) Bio and chem risk
9 Jul 2026 Muse Spark 1.1 system card 88 LAB-Bench ProtocolQA, Muse Spark 1.1 Helpful (Table 1, Figure 3) Bio and chem risk
12 Jun 2026 Muse Spark system card 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 Gemini 3 Pro system card 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 Gemini 2.5 Pro technical report 74 LAB-Bench ProtocolQA (N=108), mean solve rate (Figure 9) Bio and chem risk
7 Jul 2025 Gemini 2.5 Flash technical report 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 Gemini 2.5 Pro model card 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

All 96 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%