ABC Bench Fragment Design
Agents use biology tools to complete a computational genetic-construct design task. One task family of the Agentic Bio-Capabilities Benchmark.
ABC Bench has three task families reported separately: Fragment Design, Liquid-Handling Robot and Screening Evasion.
- Made by
- SecureBio
- Released
- June 2026
- Kind
- Hazardous knowledge
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.5 Pro #14 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- October 2026
- Last model added
- October 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly acquiring capabilities relevant to biological research, from literature synthesis to interpretation of experimental data. Increasingly, LLM agents can also perform in silico biology tasks that previously required experienced human biologists. These emerging AI capabilities offer new opportunities for scientific discovery and biomedical advances, but they also shift the landscape of biosecurity risks. To address this, we introduce the Agentic Bio-Capabilities Benchmark (ABC-Bench), a suite of tasks to measure agentic biosecurity-relevant capabilities. ABC-Bench evaluates LLM agents on both benign and dual-use biology tasks: writing code to operate liquid handling robots, designing DNA fragments for in vitro assembly, and evading DNA synthesis screening. These tasks require a combination of biology and software expertise. All tested LLM agents outperformed the median expert human baseliner on all three tasks. Agents performed highly on tasks drawing on published knowledge and well-documented protocols, and more weakly on a task requiring novel bioinformatics reasoning. In three wet-lab validation experiments, we found that OpenAI's o4-mini-high produced scripts that, when run on an OpenTrons liquid handling robot, successfully assembled DNA with expected sequences.
2 models share the top score of 100%
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
Gemini 3 Pro leads with 100%, claims included
Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.
- 100.0
Gemini 3 Pro
- 100.0 Grok 4.7
- 99.8 GLM-5.2
- 98.5
Mistral Large 4
- 96.2
Nemotron 3 Ultra
- 96.0 Claude Sonnet 4
- 95.7
Inkling
- 94.6 GLM-5.3
- 94.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 91.8
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B
- 91.1
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 90.9 GPT-5.4
- 90.7
Qwen 3.8 27B
- 89.4
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 88.4
Inkling-Small
- 88.2
Qwen3.6 27B
- 87.0 GPT-5.5 Pro
- 84.2 Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 82.5 Kimi K3
- 77.5 Beam 1.0
- 76.5 Kimi K2.6
- 76.3
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
- 74.8 Kimi K2.5
- 74.4
Nemotron 3 Super
- 71.0 Claude Opus 4
- 42.6
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B-A3B
- 19.8 Claude Opus 4.8
- 1
Gemini 3 Pro high 100%
- 2 Grok 4.7 xhigh 100%
- 3 GLM-5.2 max 99.8%
- 4
Mistral Large 4 high 98.5%
- 5
Nemotron 3 Ultra 96.2%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 4 16k 96%
- 7
Inkling xhigh 95.7%
- 8 GLM-5.3 max 94.6%
- 9
Gemini 3.1 Pro high 94%
- 10
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B xhigh 91.8%
- 11
DeepSeek-V4-Pro max 91.1%
- 12 GPT-5.4 xhigh 90.9%
- 13
Qwen 3.8 27B xhigh 90.7%
- 14
Gemma 4 31B IT 89.4%
- 15
Inkling-Small xhigh 88.4%
- 16
Qwen3.6 27B 88.2%
- 17 GPT-5.5 Pro xhigh 87%
- 18 Kimi K3.1 Pro max 84.2%
- 19 Kimi K3 max 82.5%
- 20 Beam 1.0 max 77.5%
- 21 Kimi K2.6 76.5%
- 22
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 76.3%
- 23 Kimi K2.5 74.8%
- 24
Nemotron 3 Super 74.4%
- 25 Claude Opus 4 16k 71%
- 26
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B-A3B 42.6%
- 27 Claude Opus 4.8 max 19.8%
Source: Official ABC Bench Fragment Design leaderboard
- 100.0
Gemini 3 Pro
- 100.0 Grok 4.7
- 99.8 GLM-5.2
- 98.5
Mistral Large 4
- 96.2
Nemotron 3 Ultra
- 96.0 Claude Sonnet 4
- 95.7
Inkling
- 94.6 GLM-5.3
- 94.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 91.8
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B
- 91.1
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 90.9 GPT-5.4
- 90.7
Qwen 3.8 27B
- 89.4
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 88.4
Inkling-Small
- 88.2
Qwen3.6 27B
- 87.0 GPT-5.5 Pro
- 84.2 Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 82.5 Kimi K3
- 82.1 Beam 1.0
- 76.5 Kimi K2.6
- 76.3
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
- 74.8 Kimi K2.5
- 74.4
Nemotron 3 Super
- 71.0 Claude Opus 4
- 42.6
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B-A3B
- 19.8 Claude Opus 4.8
- 1
Gemini 3 Pro high 100%
- 2 Grok 4.7 xhigh 100%
- 3 GLM-5.2 max 99.8%
- 4
Mistral Large 4 high 98.5%
- 5
Nemotron 3 Ultra 96.2%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 4 16k 96%
- 7
Inkling xhigh 95.7%
- 8 GLM-5.3 max 94.6%
- 9
Gemini 3.1 Pro high 94%
- 10
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B xhigh 91.8%
- 11
DeepSeek-V4-Pro max 91.1%
- 12 GPT-5.4 xhigh 90.9%
- 13
Qwen 3.8 27B xhigh 90.7%
- 14
Gemma 4 31B IT 89.4%
- 15
Inkling-Small xhigh 88.4%
- 16
Qwen3.6 27B 88.2%
- 17 GPT-5.5 Pro xhigh 87%
- 18 Kimi K3.1 Pro max 84.2%
- 19 Kimi K3 max 82.5%
- 20 Beam 1.0 82.1%
- 21 Kimi K2.6 76.5%
- 22
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 76.3%
- 23 Kimi K2.5 74.8%
- 24
Nemotron 3 Super 74.4%
- 25 Claude Opus 4 16k 71%
- 26
Nemotron 3 Nano 30B-A3B 42.6%
- 27 Claude Opus 4.8 max 19.8%
Sources: Official ABC Bench Fragment Design leaderboard and labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 100% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Grok 4.7 | 100% | xhigh | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GLM-5.2 | 99.8% | max | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 98.5% | high | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 96.2% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 96% | 16k | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 95.7% | xhigh | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | GLM-5.3 | 94.6% | max | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 94% | high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 91.8% | xhigh | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 91.1% | max | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | GPT-5.4 | 90.9% | xhigh | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 90.7% | xhigh | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 89.4% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 88.4% | xhigh | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 88.2% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | GPT-5.5 Pro | 87% | xhigh, Codex | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | 84.2% | max | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | Kimi K3 | 82.5% | max | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | Beam 1.0 | 77.5% | max | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | Kimi K2.6 | 76.5% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | | 76.3% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | Kimi K2.5 | 74.8% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 74.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | Claude Opus 4 | 71% | 16k | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 26 | | 42.6% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 19.8% | max | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 100% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Grok 4.7 | 100% | xhigh | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GLM-5.2 | 99.8% | max | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 98.5% | high | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 96.2% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 96% | 16k | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 95.7% | xhigh | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | GLM-5.3 | 94.6% | max | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 94% | high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 91.8% | xhigh | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 91.1% | max | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | GPT-5.4 | 90.9% | xhigh | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 90.7% | xhigh | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 89.4% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 88.4% | xhigh | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 88.2% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | GPT-5.5 Pro | 87% | xhigh, Codex | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | 84.2% | max | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | Kimi K3 | 82.5% | max | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | Beam 1.0 | 82.1% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 21 | Kimi K2.6 | 76.5% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | | 76.3% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | Kimi K2.5 | 74.8% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 74.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | Claude Opus 4 | 71% | 16k | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 26 | | 42.6% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 19.8% | max | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
Number one over time Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official ABC Bench Fragment Design leaderboard
Claude Sonnet 4 on the official leaderboard passed 85% in May 2025
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official ABC Bench Fragment Design leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2026 | | 96.5 | ABC Bench Fragment Design score, Muse Spark 1.3 (API) (Table 1, Figure 3) | Bio and chem risk |
| Oct 12, 2026 | | ABC Bench Fragment Design, no score printed because of a high refusal rate (CBRN Capability Evaluations table, section 4) | Bio and chem risk | |
| Oct 5, 2026 | Beam 1.0 technical report | 82.1 | ABC-Bench Fragment Design, 23 of 28 completed attempts passed, Pass@1 | Bio and chem risk |
| Jul 9, 2026 | | 97 | ABC Bench (Fragment Design), Muse Spark 1.1 Helpful (Table 1, Figure 4) | Bio and chem risk |
| Jun 12, 2026 | | 96.8 | ABC Bench (FD) Fragment Design (Table 1, Figure 4) | Bio and chem risk |
One lab claim next to the leaderboard
Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every benchmark.
More in Biology and chemistry
- 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-5.6 Sol 31.5%
- 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%
- 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-Rosalind-6 61.3%
- MedChemBench (OpenAI) In use Models answer chemistry questions from an OpenAI internal set, grouped with OpenAI's life science research evaluations. OpenAI has not published the task format. GPT-Rosalind-6 49.6%
- ProtocolQA Open-Ended In use Models correct errors in published lab protocols using open-ended questions adapted from LAB-Bench ProtocolQA. Scored as pass@1. GPT-6 Cyber 47.2%
- MolecularIQ In use Models answer questions about molecular graphs, such as counting, indexing and constrained generation, and a symbolic checker verifies each answer. gpt-oss-120b 47.5%