Benchmark Almanac

BioSecBench-Refusal

Grok 4.7 62.4% leads since September 2026
Only in system cards

Agents run 61 routine and 46 concealed-hazard biology analysis tasks. The score pairs red-team refusal with routine completion.

One of three BioSecBench evaluations. LatchBio reports a trial-weighted harmonic mean of red-team refusal and routine compliance.

Made by
LatchBio
Released
July 2026
Kind
Hazardous knowledge
Level
Expert
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Agent task
Strongest model tested
GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
Last in a system card
September 2026
Last model added
October 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

As AI agents are incorporated into life science workflows, the capabilities that speed discovery might also enable misuse. We present BioSecBench-Refusal, a benchmark for risk identification and refusal behavior for biological research tasks. The benchmark pairs 61 Routine tasks, legitimate analyses adapted from the published literature, with 46 Red-Team tasks, fictional scenarios that resemble real research but conceal a biosecurity hazard. Across 16 model-harness configurations, refusal rates ranged from 7 percent to 74 percent on Routine tasks and 1 percent to 62 percent on Red-Team tasks, with many configurations refusing legitimate Routine work at comparable or higher rates than concealed hazards. Refusals were most often triggered by provider API filters applied prior to agentic reasoning. However, models given room to reason showed the potential to identify more real threats. We release BioSecBench-Refusal as a tool for model developers to calibrate capability and caution for agentic biotech research and development.

Abstract of BioSecBench-Refusal: A paired metric for performance and alignment in agentic biosecurity risk assessment (arXiv:2607.05462, CC0)
22
Models scored on its own leaderboard
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Grok 4.7 leads with 62.4%

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.

  1. 1 Grok 4.7 62.4%
  2. 2 Muse Wonder 55.3%
  3. 3 Gemini 3.7 Flash 54.8%
  4. 4 Gemini 4 Argon 48.7%
  5. 5 Gemini 3.8 Flash 47.4%
  6. 6 Grok 4.6 46.9%
  7. 7 GPT-6 Astra 40.8%
  8. 8 GPT-6 Sol 37.9%
  9. 9 GPT-6.1 Sol 37.6%
  10. 10 GPT-6 Luna 37.5%
  11. 11 Muse Spark Open 34.9%
  12. 12 GPT-6.1 Terra 34.2%
  13. 13 Claude Opus 5 31.8%
  14. 14 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 11.3%
  15. 15 GLM-5.3 10.9%
  16. 16 Kimi K3 8.30%
  17. 17 Claude Fable 5.1 5.60%
  18. 18 Claude Opus 5.5 3.80%
  19. 19 Beam 1.0 3.40%
  20. 20 Mistral Large 4 3.40%
  21. 21 Nemotron 3 Ultra 0%
  22. 22 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B 0%

Source: Official BioSecBench-Refusal leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Grok 4.7 62.4% Pi Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Muse Wonder 55.3% Pi Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3.7 Flash 54.8% Pi Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 4 Argon 48.7% Pi Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 3.8 Flash 47.4% Pi Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Grok 4.6 46.9% Pi Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-6 Astra 40.8% Pi Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
8 GPT-6 Sol 37.9% Codex Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-6.1 Sol 37.6% Pi Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-6 Luna 37.5% Codex Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Muse Spark Open 34.9% Pi Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
12 GPT-6.1 Terra 34.2% Codex Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Claude Opus 5 31.8% Claude Code Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
14 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 11.3% Pi Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
15 GLM-5.3 10.9% Pi Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Kimi K3 8.30% Pi Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Claude Fable 5.1 5.60% pi Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
18 Claude Opus 5.5 3.80% Pi Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
19 Beam 1.0 3.40% Pi Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
20 Mistral Large 4 3.40% Pi Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
21 Nemotron 3 Ultra 0% Pi Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
22 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B 0% Pi Aug 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

6 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in July 2026

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

NVIDIA Moonshot AI Anthropic xAI Google DeepMind
Own leaderboard 6 leaders
Grok 4.7 62.4%

Source: Official BioSecBench-Refusal leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Grok 4.7 Gemini 3.7 Flash Grok 4.6 Claude Opus 5 Kimi K3 Nemotron 3 Ultra 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Grok 4.7 Gemini 3.7 Flash

Sources: Official BioSecBench-Refusal 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.

One system card reports it

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
Sep 21, 2026 Grok 4.7 model card 62.4 BioSecBench Refusal, xhigh, Grok Build harness (7.1 table) 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. 1 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Grok 4.7 62.4% BioSecBench Refusal, xhigh, Grok Build harness (7.1 table) 62.4% Leaderboard, Pi Same

More in Biology and chemistry

All 109 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%