LABBench2
11 biology research sub-tasks (literature, figures, tables, patents, trials and more) with tool access. Macro-averaged accuracy.
1,912 tasks in 16 dataset configs. Answers are open-response rather than multiple choice, so scores are not comparable with LAB-Bench. Configs include litqa3, protocolqa2, seqqa2, figqa2, tableqa2, suppqa2, dbqa2, cloning, and the new patentqa, sourcequality and trialqa. Frontier model accuracy falls 26 to 46 points against LAB-Bench. CC-BY-SA-4.0, gated download.
In the authors’ words
Optimism for accelerating scientific discovery with AI continues to grow. Current applications of AI in scientific research range from training dedicated foundation models on scientific data to agentic autonomous hypothesis generation systems to AI-driven autonomous labs. The need to measure progress of AI systems in scientific domains correspondingly must not only accelerate, but increasingly shift focus to more real-world capabilities. Beyond rote knowledge and even just reasoning to actually measuring the ability to perform meaningful work. Prior work introduced the Language Agent Biology Benchmark LAB-Bench as an initial attempt at measuring these abilities. Here we introduce an evolution of that benchmark, LABBench2, for measuring real-world capabilities of AI systems performing useful scientific tasks. LABBench2 comprises nearly 1,900 tasks and is, for the most part, a continuation of LAB-Bench, measuring similar capabilities but in more realistic contexts. We evaluate performance of current frontier models, and show that while abilities measured by LAB-Bench and LABBench2 have improved substantially, LABBench2 provides a meaningful jump in difficulty (model-specific accuracy differences range from -26% to -46% across subtasks) and underscores continued room for performance improvement. LABBench2 continues the legacy of LAB-Bench as a de facto benchmark for AI scientific research capabilities and we hope that it continues to help advance development of AI tools for these core research functions. To facilitate community use and development, we provide the task dataset at https://huggingface.co/datasets/futurehouse/labbench2 and a public eval harness at https://github.com/EdisonScientific/labbench2.
- 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
- Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
GPT-5.2 leads with 60.9% among models released by Feb 2026
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart.
The newest model with a score here came out in Feb 2026, and nobody has tested 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 GPT-5.2 Tools + high 60.9%
- 2 GPT-5.2 Pro Tools + high 58.3%
- 3
Gemini 3 Pro Tools + high 56.4%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.6 Tools + high 51.9%
- 5 Claude Opus 4.5 Tools + high 47.1%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5.2 | 60.9% | Tools + high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-5.2 Pro | 58.3% | Tools + high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 56.4% | Tools + high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 51.9% | Tools + high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 47.1% | Tools + high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 3 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.
Scores at each effort level
Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.2 | Tools + high | 60.9% | |||
| GPT-5.2 Pro | Tools + high | 58.3% | |||
| | Tools + high | 56.4% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Tools + high | 51.9% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Tools + high | 47.1% | |||
| | Base | 40.4% | |||
| GPT-5.2 Pro | Base | 38.2% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Base | 34.9% | |||
| GPT-5.2 | Base | 34.5% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Base | 32.5% |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
The best score passed 85% in Sep 2026
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 Oct 2026 | 88.8 | LABBench 2 | |
| 2 Sep 2026 | 86.2 | LABBench2 | |
| 13 Aug 2026 | 82.1 | LABBench2 |
4 system cards report it, from 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 Oct 2026 | | 88.8 | LABBench 2 (results table, p.5) | Capabilities |
| 2 Sep 2026 | | 86.2 | LABBench2 (results table, p.5) | Capabilities |
| 13 Aug 2026 | | 82.1 | LABBench2 (results table, p.5) | Capabilities |
| 28 May 2026 | Claude Opus 4.8 system card | LABBench2, eight categories, no overall, chart without printed values. Text: patents 68.8%, clinical trials 85.3%, tables 77.2%, supplementary materials 58.9% (8.16.8, Figure 8.16.B) | Capabilities |
Versions
More in Science and reasoning
- GPQA Diamond In use 198 graduate-level 'Google-proof' multiple-choice questions in biology, chemistry and physics.
Gemini 4 Argon 96.4%
- Terminal-Bench-Science In use 70 scientific research-workflow tasks across five science areas, run in Harbor containers. Hidden tests give the resolution rate. GPT-6 Astra 68.1%
- FrontierScience In use Models solve physics, chemistry, and biology problems in an Olympiad track graded by short answer and a Research track graded by 10-point rubrics.
Intern-S2-397B 87%
- BioMysteryBench In use Bioinformatics problems on anonymized real datasets that require real analysis with tools. Rubric-graded, with human-solvable and human-difficult splits. Claude Opus 5 90.1%
- HiPhO In use Models solve theory problems from 2024 and 2025 physics olympiad exams, some with diagrams. Official marking schemes grade answers and steps, mapped to medal levels.
Gemini 3 Pro 78.3%
- SGI-Bench In use Models work through more than 1,000 expert samples in four scientist tasks: deep research, idea generation, dry and wet experiments, and experimental reasoning.
Intern-S2-397B 51.9%