WMDP Biology
Models answer 1,273 multiple-choice questions that proxy hazardous biosecurity knowledge. Biology split of WMDP.
Subset of the WMDP benchmark. 1,273 test questions in the Hugging Face config, MIT licensed. A cybersecurity split also exists.
In the authors’ words
The White House Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence highlights the risks of large language models (LLMs) empowering malicious actors in developing biological, cyber, and chemical weapons. To measure these risks of malicious use, government institutions and major AI labs are developing evaluations for hazardous capabilities in LLMs. However, current evaluations are private, preventing further research into mitigating risk. Furthermore, they focus on only a few, highly specific pathways for malicious use. To fill these gaps, we publicly release the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proxy (WMDP) benchmark, a dataset of 3,668 multiple-choice questions that serve as a proxy measurement of hazardous knowledge in biosecurity, cybersecurity, and chemical security. WMDP was developed by a consortium of academics and technical consultants, and was stringently filtered to eliminate sensitive information prior to public release. WMDP serves two roles: first, as an evaluation for hazardous knowledge in LLMs, and second, as a benchmark for unlearning methods to remove such hazardous knowledge. To guide progress on unlearning, we develop RMU, a state-of-the-art unlearning method based on controlling model representations. RMU reduces model performance on WMDP while maintaining general capabilities in areas such as biology and computer science, suggesting that unlearning may be a concrete path towards reducing malicious use from LLMs. We release our benchmark and code publicly at https://wmdp.ai
- 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
OpenAI deep research leads with 90% 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 90%
- 2
Gemini 3 Pro 88.2%
- 3
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 86%
- 4 GPT-4.5 85%
- 5
Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 84.3%
- 6
Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 84%
- 7
Code World Model (CWM) 78.1%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | OpenAI deep research | 90% | Feb 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 88.2% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 86% | Jul 2025 | Model card | |
| 4 | GPT-4.5 | 85% | Feb 2025 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 84.3% | Apr 2025 | Model card | |
| 6 | | 84% | Jul 2025 | Model card | |
| 7 | | 78.1% | Oct 2025 | Model card |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
The best score passed 85% in Feb 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.
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 Nov 2025 | | 88.2 | WMDP BIO (N=1273), mean solve rate, shuffled answer choices (Figure 1) | Bio and chem risk |
| 8 Oct 2025 | | 78.1 | WMDP-Bio (Table 8) | Bio and chem risk |
| 7 Jul 2025 | | 86 | WMDP BIO (N=1273), mean solve rate (Figure 9) | Bio and chem risk |
| 7 Jul 2025 | | 84 | WMDP BIO (N=1273), mean solve rate (Figure 9) | Bio and chem risk |
| 28 Apr 2025 | | 84.3 | WMDP BIO (N=1273), mean solve rate over 100 shuffled runs (Figure 1) | Bio and chem risk |
| 27 Feb 2025 | GPT-4.5 system card | 85 | WMDP Biology, 1,520 questions, post-mitigation (4.3.6) | Bio and chem risk |
| 25 Feb 2025 | OpenAI deep research system card | 90 | WMDP Biology, 1,520 questions, cons@4, post-mitigation with browsing, text and printed chart label (without browsing 87%) (3.4.4) | 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%