WMDP Biology
Models answer 1,273 multiple-choice questions that proxy hazardous biosecurity knowledge. Biology split of WMDP.
Subset of the WMDP benchmark. 1,273 test questions in the Hugging Face config, MIT licensed. A cybersecurity split also exists.
- Made by
- CAIS + Scale AI et al.
- Released
- March 2024
- Kind
- Hazardous knowledge
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Multiple choice
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Gemini 3 Pro #55 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- March 2026, dropped after it saturated
- Last model added
- April 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
The White House Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence highlights the risks of large language models (LLMs) empowering malicious actors in developing biological, cyber, and chemical weapons. To measure these risks of malicious use, government institutions and major AI labs are developing evaluations for hazardous capabilities in LLMs. However, current evaluations are private, preventing further research into mitigating risk. Furthermore, they focus on only a few, highly specific pathways for malicious use. To fill these gaps, we publicly release the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proxy (WMDP) benchmark, a dataset of 3,668 multiple-choice questions that serve as a proxy measurement of hazardous knowledge in biosecurity, cybersecurity, and chemical security. WMDP was developed by a consortium of academics and technical consultants, and was stringently filtered to eliminate sensitive information prior to public release. WMDP serves two roles: first, as an evaluation for hazardous knowledge in LLMs, and second, as a benchmark for unlearning methods to remove such hazardous knowledge. To guide progress on unlearning, we develop RMU, a state-of-the-art unlearning method based on controlling model representations. RMU reduces model performance on WMDP while maintaining general capabilities in areas such as biology and computer science, suggesting that unlearning may be a concrete path towards reducing malicious use from LLMs. We release our benchmark and code publicly at https://wmdp.ai
Grok 4.20 leads with 91% among models released by February 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.
Yi-34B leads with 75.3% 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.
Grok 4.20 leads with 91%, 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 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 Grok 4.20 91%
- 2 OpenAI deep research 90%
- 3
Gemini 3 Pro 88.2%
- 4
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 86%
- 5 GPT-4.5 85%
- 6
Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 84.3%
- 7
Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 84%
- 8
Code World Model (CWM) 78.1%
Source: Labs’ model cards
- 1
Yi-34B 75.3%
- 2
Mixtral 8x7B 74.8%
Source: Official WMDP Biology leaderboard
- 1 Grok 4.20 91%
- 2 OpenAI deep research 90%
- 3
Gemini 3 Pro 88.2%
- 4
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 86%
- 5 GPT-4.5 85%
- 6
Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 84.3%
- 7
Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 84%
- 8
Code World Model (CWM) 78.1%
- 9
Yi-34B 75.3%
- 10
Mixtral 8x7B 74.8%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official WMDP Biology leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Grok 4.20 | 91% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | OpenAI deep research | 90% | Feb 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 88.2% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 86% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | GPT-4.5 | 85% | Feb 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 84.3% | Apr 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | | 84% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 78.1% | Oct 2025 | Lab model card |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 75.3% | Nov 2023 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | | 74.8% | Dec 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Grok 4.20 | 91% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | OpenAI deep research | 90% | Feb 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 88.2% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 86% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | GPT-4.5 | 85% | Feb 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 84.3% | Apr 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | | 84% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 78.1% | Oct 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | | 75.3% | Nov 2023 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 74.8% | Dec 2023 | Official leaderboard |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 10 entries, 2 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
2 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in March 2024 Number one over time 3 models have held number one with claims included since its release in March 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Labs’ model cards
OpenAI’s own number for OpenAI deep research passed 85% in February 2025
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official WMDP Biology 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 | 91 | WMDP Bio, accuracy 0.91, Grok 4.2 SA, Table 4 |
8 system cards report it, from 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2026 | Grok 4.20 model card | 91 | WMDP Bio, accuracy 0.91, Grok 4.2 SA, Table 4 | Safety |
| Nov 18, 2025 | | 88.2 | WMDP BIO (N=1273), mean solve rate, shuffled answer choices (Figure 1) | Bio and chem risk |
| Oct 8, 2025 | | 78.1 | WMDP-Bio (Table 8) | Bio and chem risk |
| Jul 7, 2025 | | 86 | WMDP BIO (N=1273), mean solve rate (Figure 9) | Bio and chem risk |
| Jul 7, 2025 | | 84 | WMDP BIO (N=1273), mean solve rate (Figure 9) | Bio and chem risk |
| Apr 28, 2025 | | 84.3 | WMDP BIO (N=1273), mean solve rate over 100 shuffled runs (Figure 1) | Bio and chem risk |
| Feb 27, 2025 | GPT-4.5 system card | 85 | WMDP Biology, 1,520 questions, post-mitigation (4.3.6) | Bio and chem risk |
| Feb 25, 2025 | OpenAI deep research system card | 90 | WMDP Biology, 1,520 questions, cons@4, post-mitigation with browsing, text and printed chart label (without browsing 87%) (3.4.4) | Bio and chem risk |
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%