Benchmark Almanac

LABBench2 FigQA2

GPT-5.2 42.6% leads since February 2026
Not in model cards

Models read scientific figures and answer in open response. Served as images or as PDFs. The FigQA2 subtask of LABBench2.

101 tasks in the figqa2 config of the LABBench2 dataset. Open response replaces multiple choice, so scores are not comparable with the LAB-Bench subtask.

Released
February 2026
Kind
Genomics and life sciences
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
Public, plus a private test set
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.2 Pro #31 on the capability index
Last model added
February 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Optimism for accelerating scientific discovery with AI continues to grow. Current applications of AI in scientific research range from training dedicated foundation models on scientific data to agentic autonomous hypothesis generation systems to AI-driven autonomous labs. The need to measure progress of AI systems in scientific domains correspondingly must not only accelerate, but increasingly shift focus to more real-world capabilities. Beyond rote knowledge and even just reasoning to actually measuring the ability to perform meaningful work. Prior work introduced the Language Agent Biology Benchmark LAB-Bench as an initial attempt at measuring these abilities. Here we introduce an evolution of that benchmark, LABBench2, for measuring real-world capabilities of AI systems performing useful scientific tasks. LABBench2 comprises nearly 1,900 tasks and is, for the most part, a continuation of LAB-Bench, measuring similar capabilities but in more realistic contexts. We evaluate performance of current frontier models, and show that while abilities measured by LAB-Bench and LABBench2 have improved substantially, LABBench2 provides a meaningful jump in difficulty (model-specific accuracy differences range from -26% to -46% across subtasks) and underscores continued room for performance improvement. LABBench2 continues the legacy of LAB-Bench as a de facto benchmark for AI scientific research capabilities and we hope that it continues to help advance development of AI tools for these core research functions. To facilitate community use and development, we provide the task dataset at https://huggingface.co/datasets/futurehouse/labbench2 and a public eval harness at https://github.com/EdisonScientific/labbench2.

Abstract of LABBench2: An Improved Benchmark for AI Systems Performing Biology Research (arXiv:2604.09554, CC0)
5
Models scored on its own leaderboard

GPT-5.2 leads with 42.6% among models released by February 2026

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. Every run is in the next chart.

The newest model with a score here came out in February 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 GPT-5.2 tools,high; mode inject 42.6%
  2. 2 GPT-5.2 Pro tools,high; mode inject 34.7%
  3. 3 Claude Opus 4.6 tools,high; mode inject 28.7%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.5 tools,high; mode inject 25.7%
  5. 5 Gemini 3 Pro tools,high; mode inject 23.8%

Source: Official LABBench2 FigQA2 leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5.2 42.6% tools,high; mode inject Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.2 Pro 34.7% tools,high; mode inject Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Opus 4.6 28.7% tools,high; mode inject Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.5 25.7% tools,high; mode inject Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 3 Pro 23.8% tools,high; mode inject Nov 2025 Official leaderboard

Scores at each effort level

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
GPT-5.2
—; mode inj… tools,high;…
42.6%
GPT-5.2 Pro
—; mode inj… tools,high;…
34.7%
Claude Opus 4.6
—; mode inj… tools,high;…
28.7%
Claude Opus 4.5
—; mode inj… tools,high;…
25.7%
Gemini 3 Pro
—; mode inj… tools,high;…
23.8%

Source: Official LABBench2 FigQA2 leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-5.2 tools,high; mode inject 42.6% 7,000
GPT-5.2 Pro tools,high; mode inject 34.7% 6,200
Claude Opus 4.6 tools,high; mode inject 28.7% 4,900
Claude Opus 4.5 tools,high; mode inject 25.7% 1,100
Gemini 3 Pro tools,high; mode inject 23.8% 443
GPT-5.2 —; mode inject 11.9% 61
GPT-5.2 Pro —; mode inject 11.9% 1,100
Gemini 3 Pro —; mode inject 10.9% 264
Claude Opus 4.6 —; mode inject 10.9% 304
Claude Opus 4.5 —; mode inject 7.90% 259

Number one over time

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

OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since Feb 2026
GPT-5.2 42.6%

Source: Official LABBench2 FigQA2 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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.2 Claude Opus 4.5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.2 Claude Opus 4.5

Source: Official LABBench2 FigQA2 leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

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.

Anthropic xAI OpenAI
LABBench2 FigQA2 Not tested since Feb 2026
GPT-5.2 42.6%
LAB-Bench FigQA Replaced by LABBench2 FigQA2, May 2026
LABBench2 FigQA2 Not tested since Feb 2026
GPT-5.2 42.6%

Sources: Official leaderboards and labs’ model cards

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%