LABBench2
11 biology research sub-tasks (literature, figures, tables, patents, trials and more) with tool access. Macro-averaged accuracy.
1,912 tasks in 16 dataset configs. Answers are open-response rather than multiple choice, so scores are not comparable with LAB-Bench. Configs include litqa3, protocolqa2, seqqa2, figqa2, tableqa2, suppqa2, dbqa2, cloning, and the new patentqa, sourcequality and trialqa. Frontier model accuracy falls 26 to 46 points against LAB-Bench. CC-BY-SA-4.0, gated download.
- Made by
- Edison Scientific (FutureHouse)
- Released
- February 2026
- Kind
- Lab and data work
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Short answer
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Gemini 4 Argon #9 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- October 2026
- Last model added
- October 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.
GPT-5.2 leads with 60.9% 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.
Gemini 4 Argon leads with 88.8%, 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 February 2026, and nobody has tested 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 GPT-5.2 Tools + high 60.9%
- 2 GPT-5.2 Pro Tools + high 58.3%
- 3
Gemini 3 Pro Tools + high 56.4%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.6 Tools + high 51.9%
- 5 Claude Opus 4.5 Tools + high 47.1%
Source: Official LABBench2 leaderboard
- 1
Gemini 4 Argon 88.8%
- 2
Gemini 3.8 Flash 86.2%
- 3
Gemini 3.7 Flash 82.1%
- 4 GPT-5.2 Tools + high 60.9%
- 5 GPT-5.2 Pro Tools + high 58.3%
- 6
Gemini 3 Pro Tools + high 56.4%
- 7 Claude Opus 4.6 Tools + high 51.9%
- 8 Claude Opus 4.5 Tools + high 47.1%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official LABBench2 leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5.2 | 60.9% | Tools + high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-5.2 Pro | 58.3% | Tools + high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 56.4% | Tools + high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 51.9% | Tools + high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 47.1% | Tools + high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 88.8% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 86.2% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 82.1% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | GPT-5.2 | 60.9% | Tools + high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | GPT-5.2 Pro | 58.3% | Tools + high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | | 56.4% | Tools + high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 51.9% | Tools + high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 47.1% | Tools + high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 3 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
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.
Source: Official LABBench2 leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.2 | Tools + high | 60.9% | 5,400 | ||
| GPT-5.2 Pro | Tools + high | 58.3% | 3,700 | ||
| | Tools + high | 56.4% | 1,300 | ||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Tools + high | 51.9% | 6,900 | ||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Tools + high | 47.1% | 3,600 | ||
| | Base | 40.4% | 258 | ||
| GPT-5.2 Pro | Base | 38.2% | 1,700 | ||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Base | 34.9% | 590 | ||
| GPT-5.2 | Base | 34.5% | 128 | ||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Base | 32.5% | 294 |
Number one over time 4 models have held number one with claims included since its release in February 2026
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 LABBench2 leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Google DeepMind’s own number for Gemini 3.8 Flash passed 85% in September 2026
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official LABBench2 leaderboard and labs’ model cards
One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2026 | 88.8 | LABBench 2 | |
| Sep 2, 2026 | 86.2 | LABBench2 | |
| Aug 13, 2026 | 82.1 | LABBench2 |
4 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 13, 2026 | | 88.8 | LABBench 2 (results table, p.5) | Capabilities |
| Sep 2, 2026 | | 86.2 | LABBench2 (results table, p.5) | Capabilities |
| Aug 13, 2026 | | 82.1 | LABBench2 (results table, p.5) | Capabilities |
| May 28, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.8 system card | LABBench2, eight categories, no overall, chart without printed values. Text: patents 68.8%, clinical trials 85.3%, tables 77.2%, supplementary materials 58.9% (8.16.8, Figure 8.16.B) | Capabilities |
Versions
More in Science and reasoning
- GPQA Diamond In use 198 graduate-level 'Google-proof' multiple-choice questions in biology, chemistry and physics.
Gemini 4 Carbon 96.5%
- Terminal-Bench-Science In use 70 scientific research-workflow tasks across five science areas, run in Harbor containers. Hidden tests give the resolution rate. GPT-6 Astra 68.1%
- FrontierScience In use Models solve physics, chemistry, and biology problems in an Olympiad track graded by short answer and a Research track graded by 10-point rubrics.
Intern-S2-397B 87%
- BioMysteryBench In use Bioinformatics problems on anonymized real datasets that require real analysis with tools. Rubric-graded, with human-solvable and human-difficult splits. Claude Fable 5.2 83.7%
- HiPhO In use Models solve theory problems from 2024 and 2025 physics olympiad exams, some with diagrams. Official marking schemes grade answers and steps, mapped to medal levels.
Gemini 3 Pro 78.3%
- SGI-Bench In use Models work through more than 1,000 expert samples in four scientist tasks: deep research, idea generation, dry and wet experiments, and experimental reasoning.
Gemini 3 Pro 33.8%