Benchmark Almanac

SpatialBench (LatchBio)

GPT-5.5 57.6% leads since April 2026
Claude Fable 5.1 77.6% leads since September 2026
Only in system cards

Agentic spatial-transcriptomics data analysis problems with deterministic graders. Anthropic reports a 115-problem Verified variant.

Three problem sets carry this name. The December 2025 paper has 146 problems, the June 2026 repo is a revised set of 159, and Anthropic cards report SpatialBench Verified with 115. Scores on different sets do not compare.

Made by
LatchBio
Released
December 2025
Kind
Lab and data work
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
Public, plus a private test set
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 5.5 #4 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

Spatial transcriptomics assays are rapidly increasing in scale and complexity, making computational analysis a major bottleneck in biological discovery. Although frontier AI agents have improved dramatically at software engineering and general data analysis, it remains unclear whether they can extract biological insight from messy, real-world spatial datasets. We introduce SpatialBench, a benchmark of 146 verifiable problems derived from practical spatial analysis workflows spanning five spatial technologies and seven task categories. Each problem provides a snapshot of experimental data immediately prior to an analysis step and a deterministic grader that evaluates recovery of a key biological result. Benchmark data on frontier models shows that base model accuracy remains low (20-38% across model families), with strong model-task and model-platform interactions. Harness design has a large empirical effect on performance, indicating that tools, prompts, control flow, and execution environment should be evaluated and improved as first-class objects. SpatialBench serves both as a measurement tool and a diagnostic lens for developing agents that can interact with real spatial datasets faithfully, transparently, and reproducibly.

Abstract of SpatialBench: Can Agents Analyze Real-World Spatial Biology Data? (arXiv:2512.21907, CC0)
16
Entries on its own leaderboard, 14 models we track
7
System cards report it, from 1 lab

GPT-5.5 leads with 57.6% among models released by May 2026

Best score per entry 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. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 77.6%, 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 tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 GPT-5.5 57.6%
  2. 2 GPT-5.4 57.4%
  3. 3 Gemini 3.5 Flash 55.6%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.8 55.4%
  5. 5 Claude Opus 4.6 52.8%
  6. 6 Claude Opus 4.7 52.4%
  7. 7 Gemini 3.1 Pro 51.6%
  8. 8 GPT-5.2 50.1%
  9. 9 grok-4.20-beta-0309-reasoning 45.9%
  10. 10 Claude Sonnet 4.6 44.2%
  11. 11 Claude Opus 4.5 42.8%
  12. 12 Claude Sonnet 4.5 41.5%
  13. 13 GPT-5.1 39.8%
  14. 14 Grok 4.1 Fast reasoning 34%
  15. 15 Grok 4 31.9%
  16. 16 gemini-2.5-pro (snapshot unspecified) 28.9%

Source: Official SpatialBench (LatchBio) leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5.5 57.6% mini-swe-agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.4 57.4% mini-swe-agent Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3.5 Flash 55.6% pi May 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.8 55.4% claude-code May 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Opus 4.6 52.8% mini-swe-agent Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Opus 4.7 52.4% mini-swe-agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3.1 Pro 51.6% mini-swe-agent Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
8 GPT-5.2 50.1% mini-swe-agent Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
9 grok-4.20-beta-0309-reasoning 45.9% mini-swe-agent Official leaderboard
10 Claude Sonnet 4.6 44.2% mini-swe-agent Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Opus 4.5 42.8% mini-swe-agent Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Claude Sonnet 4.5 41.5% mini-swe-agent Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
13 GPT-5.1 39.8% mini-swe-agent Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Grok 4.1 Fast 34% reasoning, mini-swe-agent Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Grok 4 31.9% mini-swe-agent Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
16 gemini-2.5-pro (snapshot unspecified) 28.9% mini-swe-agent Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Fable 5.1 77.6% Sep 2026 Lab model card
2 Claude Opus 5 72.5% Jul 2026 Lab model card
3 Claude Sonnet 5.5 72.5% Sep 2026 Lab model card
4 Claude Opus 5.5 72% Sep 2026 Lab model card
5 Claude Sonnet 5 70% Jun 2026 Lab model card
6 Claude Haiku 5.5 67.7% Oct 2026 Lab model card
7 GPT-5.5 57.6% mini-swe-agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 GPT-5.4 57.4% mini-swe-agent Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 3.5 Flash 55.6% pi May 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Claude Opus 4.8 55.4% claude-code May 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Opus 4.6 52.8% mini-swe-agent Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Claude Opus 4.7 52.4% mini-swe-agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Gemini 3.1 Pro 51.6% mini-swe-agent Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
14 GPT-5.2 50.1% mini-swe-agent Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Claude Sonnet 4.6 44.2% mini-swe-agent Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Claude Opus 4.5 42.8% mini-swe-agent Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Claude Sonnet 4.5 41.5% mini-swe-agent Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
18 GPT-5.1 39.8% mini-swe-agent Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
19 Grok 4.1 Fast 34% reasoning, mini-swe-agent Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
20 Grok 4 31.9% mini-swe-agent Jul 2025 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 7 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

The best score, 57.6%, costs $1.12 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Anthropic OpenAI xAI Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale GPT-5.5 GPT-5.4 Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 Grok 4.1 Fast, reasoning 0% 20% 40% 60% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale GPT-5.5 Claude Sonnet 4.6

Source: Official SpatialBench (LatchBio) leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-5.5 mini-swe-agent 57.6% $1.12
GPT-5.4 mini-swe-agent 57.4% $0.58
Gemini 3.5 Flash pi 55.6% $1.43
Claude Opus 4.8 claude-code 55.4% $0.88
GPT-5.5 openai-codex 53.7% $3.16
Claude Opus 4.6 mini-swe-agent 52.8% $0.85
Claude Opus 4.8 mini-swe-agent 52.6% $1.11
Claude Opus 4.7 mini-swe-agent 52.4% $0.98
Gemini 3.1 Pro mini-swe-agent 51.6% $0.94
Claude Opus 4.7 claude-code 51.4% $0.80
GPT-5.2 mini-swe-agent 50.1% $0.60
Gemini 3.5 Flash mini-swe-agent 48.9% $2.76
Claude Sonnet 4.6 mini-swe-agent 44.2% $0.27
Claude Opus 4.5 mini-swe-agent 42.8% $0.46
Claude Sonnet 4.5 mini-swe-agent 41.5% $0.22
GPT-5.1 mini-swe-agent 39.8% $0.16
Grok 4.1 Fast reasoning mini-swe-agent 34% $0.02
Grok 4 mini-swe-agent 31.9% $0.45

5 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in December 2025 8 models have held number one with claims included since its release in December 2025

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.

Anthropic OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2026
GPT-5.5 57.6%
Lab claims 4 leaders

Sources: Official SpatialBench (LatchBio) 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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5.1 Claude Opus 5 GPT-5.5 Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.5 Grok 4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5.1 Claude Sonnet 5

Sources: Official SpatialBench (LatchBio) 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.

7 system cards report it, from 1 lab

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
Oct 7, 2026 Claude Haiku 5.5 system card 67.7 LatchBio Bioinformatics, SpatialBench Verified, max effort, safeguards off (8.13.1, CB-1 evaluation in 2.2.2) Bio and chem risk
Sep 28, 2026 Claude Sonnet 5.5 system card 72.5 LatchBio SpatialBench Verified (8.17.2, Figure 8.17.A) Capabilities
Sep 22, 2026 Claude Opus 5.5 system card 72 LatchBio Bioinformatics, SpatialBench Verified, 115 problems, max effort (8.17.2) Capabilities
Sep 1, 2026 Claude Fable 5.1 system card 77.6 LatchBio SpatialBench Verified, Mythos 5.1 Other
Jul 24, 2026 Claude Opus 5 system card 72.5 LatchBio Bioinformatics, SpatialBench Verified, 115 problems (8.17.2) Capabilities
Jun 30, 2026 Claude Sonnet 5 system card 70 LatchBio SpatialBench Verified, 115 problems, score 0.70 (8.14.2, Figure 8.14.6.A) Capabilities
May 28, 2026 Claude Opus 4.8 system card 53.3 LatchBio Bioinformatics, SpatialBench, no extended thinking (8.16.3) Capabilities

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.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Claude Opus 4.8 53.3% LatchBio Bioinformatics, SpatialBench, no extended thinking (8.16.3) 55.4% Leaderboard, claude-code −2.1 pts

More in Science and reasoning

All 92 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%
  • LABBench2 In use 11 biology research sub-tasks (literature, figures, tables, patents, trials and more) with tool access. Macro-averaged accuracy. GPT-5.2 60.9%