Meta BioDesign Proxy
Muse Wonder Full 79.4 leads since Oct 2026 Only in system cards Agents complete computational biology design tasks across host-pathogen interaction, protein design and sequence analysis. Aggregate normalized score.
In-house Meta evaluation built with Faculty AI and external experts. The Muse Wonder card reports the average over five tasks in three categories. The tasks are not public.
- 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
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
Muse Wonder Full leads with 79.4
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 Muse Wonder Full 79.4
- 2 Muse Spark 1.3 77.4
- 3 Muse Spark 1.1 55.2
- 4 Muse Spark 46.2
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Muse Wonder Full | 79.4 | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | Muse Spark 1.3 | 77.4 | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | Muse Spark 1.1 | 55.2 | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | Muse Spark | 46.2 | Jun 2026 | Model card |
3 models have held number one since 2023
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.
4 system cards report it, from 1 lab
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 | Muse Spark 1.3 system card | 77.4 | Meta BioDesign Proxy aggregate score over five tasks, Muse Spark 1.3 (API) (Table 1, Figure 4) | Bio and chem risk |
| 12 Oct 2026 | Muse Wonder Full model card | 79.4 | BioDesign Tools Usage (Meta BDT), average over five tasks, printed as 79.4% (CBRN Capability Evaluations table, section 4) | Bio and chem risk |
| 9 Jul 2026 | Muse Spark 1.1 system card | 55.2 | BioDesign Tools (avg) over five tasks, Muse Spark 1.1 Helpful (Table 1, Figure 5) | Bio and chem risk |
| 12 Jun 2026 | Muse Spark system card | 46.2 | BioDesign Tools (avg) over five tasks (Table 1, Figure 5) | 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%