LAB-Bench FigQA
Models interpret figures from biology papers and answer multiple-choice questions. FigQA subset of LAB-Bench.
Anthropic reports LAB-Bench subsets separately in its RSP bio sections.
- Made by
- FutureHouse
- Released
- July 2024
- Kind
- Genomics and life sciences
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Multiple choice
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- Claude Opus 4.8 #21 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- March 2026, dropped before it saturated
- Last model added
- June 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
There is widespread optimism that frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) and LLM-augmented systems have the potential to rapidly accelerate scientific discovery across disciplines. Today, many benchmarks exist to measure LLM knowledge and reasoning on textbook-style science questions, but few if any benchmarks are designed to evaluate language model performance on practical tasks required for scientific research, such as literature search, protocol planning, and data analysis. As a step toward building such benchmarks, we introduce the Language Agent Biology Benchmark (LAB-Bench), a broad dataset of over 2,400 multiple choice questions for evaluating AI systems on a range of practical biology research capabilities, including recall and reasoning over literature, interpretation of figures, access and navigation of databases, and comprehension and manipulation of DNA and protein sequences. Importantly, in contrast to previous scientific benchmarks, we expect that an AI system that can achieve consistently high scores on the more difficult LAB-Bench tasks would serve as a useful assistant for researchers in areas such as literature search and molecular cloning. As an initial assessment of the emergent scientific task capabilities of frontier language models, we measure performance of several against our benchmark and report results compared to human expert biology researchers. We will continue to update and expand LAB-Bench over time, and expect it to serve as a useful tool in the development of automated research systems going forward. A public subset of LAB-Bench is available for use at the following URL: https://huggingface.co/datasets/futurehouse/lab-bench
Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 80.4% among models released by May 2026
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.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads with 46% across all independent runs
Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.
Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 80.4%, 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.
The newest model with a score here came out in May 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 1 Claude Opus 4.8 80.4%
- 2 Claude Mythos Preview 79.7%
- 3 Claude Opus 4.7 78.6%
- 4 Grok 4.20 66%
- 5 Claude Sonnet 4.6 58.8%
- 6 Claude Opus 4.6 58%
- 7 Claude Opus 4.5 54.9%
- 8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 49.7%
- 9 Claude Haiku 4.5 49%
- 10 Claude Opus 4.1 46%
- 11 Grok 4.1 34%
Source: Labs’ model cards
- 1 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 46%
- 2 Claude 3 Opus 24%
- 3 Claude 3 Haiku 23%
Source: Official LAB-Bench FigQA leaderboard
- 1 Claude Opus 4.8 80.4%
- 2 Claude Mythos Preview 79.7%
- 3 Claude Opus 4.7 78.6%
- 4 Grok 4.20 66%
- 5 Claude Sonnet 4.6 58.8%
- 6 Claude Opus 4.6 58%
- 7 Claude Opus 4.5 54.9%
- 8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 49.7%
- 9 Claude Haiku 4.5 49%
- 10 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 46%
- 11 Claude Opus 4.1 46%
- 12 Grok 4.1 34%
- 13 Claude 3 Opus 24%
- 14 Claude 3 Haiku 23%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official LAB-Bench FigQA leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 80.4% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | Claude Mythos Preview | 79.7% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 78.6% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | Grok 4.20 | 66% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 58.8% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 58% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 54.9% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 49.7% | Sep 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 49% | Oct 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 10 | Claude Opus 4.1 | 46% | Aug 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 11 | Grok 4.1 | 34% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | 46% | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Claude 3 Opus | 24% | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Claude 3 Haiku | 23% | Mar 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 80.4% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | Claude Mythos Preview | 79.7% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 78.6% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | Grok 4.20 | 66% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 58.8% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 58% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 54.9% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 49.7% | Sep 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 49% | Oct 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 10 | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | 46% | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | Claude Opus 4.1 | 46% | Aug 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 12 | Grok 4.1 | 34% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 13 | Claude 3 Opus | 24% | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | Claude 3 Haiku | 23% | Mar 2024 | Official leaderboard |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 7 entries, 3 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
8 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in July 2024 Number one over time 8 models have held number one with claims included since its release in July 2024
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.
Sources: Official LAB-Bench FigQA leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official LAB-Bench FigQA leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Labs headline it less often now, last in March 2026
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2026 | Grok 4.20 | 66 | FigQA, accuracy 0.66, Grok 4.2 SA, Table 4 |
15 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2026 | Claude Fable 5 system card | LAB-Bench FigQA, the card says Fable 5 showed a degradation because its bio-safeguard classifiers flag biology figures, no Fable 5 number printed (8.16.7) | Capabilities | |
| May 28, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.8 system card | 80.4 | LAB-Bench FigQA, 181 public questions, no tools, max effort, five runs, new grader (87.3% with Python tools) (8.12.3) | Capabilities |
| Apr 16, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.7 system card | 78.6 | LAB-Bench FigQA, adaptive thinking at max effort, no tools. 86.4 with Python tools (8.9.1) | Capabilities |
| Apr 7, 2026 | Grok 4.20 model card | 66 | FigQA, accuracy 0.66, Grok 4.2 SA, Table 4 | Safety |
| Apr 7, 2026 | Claude Mythos Preview system card | 79.7 | LAB-Bench FigQA, adaptive thinking, max effort, no tools, average of five runs (6.11.1); 89.0 with Python tools | Capabilities |
| Feb 17, 2026 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card | 58.8 | LAB-Bench FigQA, adaptive thinking, max effort, no tools; 77.1 with an image cropping tool (2.17.1) | Capabilities |
| Feb 5, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.6 system card | 58 | LAB-Bench FigQA, adaptive thinking, max effort, no tools, average of five runs (2.19.1); 78.3 with an image cropping tool | Capabilities |
| Nov 24, 2025 | Claude Opus 4.5 system card | 54.9 | LAB-Bench FigQA, no tools, extended thinking off, 0-shot (2.21; 69.2% with image cropping tool and 32,768 reasoning tokens, 0.6924 in 7.2.4.4) | Capabilities |
| Nov 17, 2025 | Grok 4.1 model card | 34 | FigQA, accuracy 0.34, Grok 4.1 Thinking (Table 4) | Bio and chem risk |
| Oct 15, 2025 | Claude Haiku 4.5 system card | 49 | LAB-Bench FigQA, k-shots=10, score 0.49 (6.2.3.1) | Bio and chem risk |
| Sep 29, 2025 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 system card | 49.7 | LAB-Bench FigQA (Figure QA), 10-shot, no tools, score 0.497 (Figure 9.2.4.4.A) | Bio and chem risk |
| Aug 5, 2025 | Claude Opus 4.1 system card addendum | 46 | LAB-Bench subset FigQA 0.46 (6.3.1.2) | Bio and chem risk |
| May 22, 2025 | Claude Sonnet 4 system card | LAB-Bench FigQA, 0, 5 and 10 shots, extended thinking, chart without printed values (Figure 7.2.4.7.A) | Bio and chem risk | |
| May 22, 2025 | Claude Opus 4 system card | LAB-Bench FigQA, 0, 5 and 10 shots, extended thinking, chart without printed values (Figure 7.2.4.7.A) | Bio and chem risk | |
| Feb 24, 2025 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet system card | LabBench subset FigQA, 0 and 5 shots with Bo1 to Bo10, 32k thinking, chart without printed values (Figures 18 and 19) | Bio and chem risk |
Versions
We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.
Sources: Official leaderboards and labs’ model cards
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%