WMDP Chemistry
Models answer 408 multiple-choice questions that proxy hazardous chemical security knowledge. Chemistry split of WMDP.
Subset of the WMDP benchmark. 408 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
- October 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 90%
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.
- 1 Grok 4.20 90%
- 2
Gemini 3 Pro 84.8%
- 3
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 80%
- 4
Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 75.3%
- 5
Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 75%
- 6
Code World Model (CWM) 64.6%
- 7 Beam 1.0 62.4%
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Grok 4.20 | 90% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 84.8% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 80% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 75.3% | Apr 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 75% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 64.6% | Oct 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | Beam 1.0 | 62.4% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card |
4 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers 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
XAI’s own number for Grok 4.20 passed 85% in March 2026
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: 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 | 90 | WMDP Chem, accuracy 0.90, Grok 4.2 SA, Table 4 |
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 5, 2026 | Beam 1.0 technical report | 62.4 | WMDP-Chem accuracy | Bio and chem risk |
| Apr 7, 2026 | Grok 4.20 model card | 90 | WMDP Chem, accuracy 0.90, Grok 4.2 SA, Table 4 | Safety |
| Nov 18, 2025 | | 84.8 | WMDP CHEM (N=408), mean solve rate, shuffled answer choices (Figure 1) | Bio and chem risk |
| Oct 8, 2025 | | 64.6 | WMDP-Chem (Table 8) | Bio and chem risk |
| Jul 7, 2025 | | 80 | WMDP CHEM (N=408), mean solve rate (Figure 9) | Bio and chem risk |
| Jul 7, 2025 | | 75 | WMDP CHEM (N=408), mean solve rate (Figure 9) | Bio and chem risk |
| Apr 28, 2025 | | 75.3 | WDMP CHEM (N=408), mean solve rate over 100 shuffled runs (Figure 1) | 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%