WMDP
Proxy multiple-choice benchmark for hazardous knowledge in bio, chem and cyber. Released with the RMU unlearning method.
3,668 multiple-choice questions in three splits on Hugging Face: biology 1,273, chemistry 408 and cybersecurity 1,987. MIT licensed. Questions exclude directly hazardous content. Mainly used to measure unlearning.
- 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
- GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- September 2026
- Last model added
- September 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
GPT-6 Astra leads with 84.8% among models released by September 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.
The newest model with a score here came out in September 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
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 15 more
- 1 GPT-6 Astra 84.8%
- 2
Olmo 3 32B Think 34.8%
- 3
Olmo 3.1 32B Think 32.7%
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-6 Astra | 84.8% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 34.8% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 32.7% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card |
2 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
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: 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.
12 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2026 | Grok 4.7 model card | WMDP dual-use knowledge (MCQ), high: WMDP-Bio 88.1%, WMDP-Chem 84.9%, WMDP-Cyber 88.1%, no overall score (7.5) | Bio and chem risk | |
| Sep 3, 2026 | GPT-6 Astra system card | 84.8 | WMDP accuracy, baseline condition of the sandbagging evaluation, 400 questions, medium reasoning effort, printed chart label (Figure 36) | Monitorability |
| Aug 12, 2026 | Grok 4.6 model card | WMDP dual-use knowledge (MCQ), high: WMDP-Bio 90.0%, WMDP-Chem 85.3%, WMDP-Cyber 90.1%, no overall score (8.4) | Bio and chem risk | |
| Jul 14, 2026 | Grok 4.5 model card | WMDP dual-use knowledge (MCQ), high: WMDP-Bio 90.9%, WMDP-Chem 87.3%, no overall score (8.2) | Bio and chem risk | |
| Jul 9, 2026 | | WMDP reported as WMDP-Bio 89.0 and WMDP-Chem 87.0 with no overall, Muse Spark 1.1 Helpful (Table 1, Figure 2) | Bio and chem risk | |
| Jun 12, 2026 | | WMDP subsets with no overall (Table 1, Figure 2, Figure 15): WMDP-Bio 88.4, WMDP-Chem 85.6, WMDP-Cyber 89.8 | Bio and chem risk | |
| Dec 15, 2025 | | 34.8 | WMDP, 20% subsample, exact-match accuracy, lower means less hazardous knowledge, Final Think 3.0 column (Table 54) | Bio and chem risk |
| Dec 15, 2025 | | 32.7 | WMDP, 20% subsample, exact-match accuracy, lower means less hazardous knowledge, Final Think 3.1 column (Table 54) | Bio and chem risk |
| Nov 17, 2025 | Grok 4.1 model card | WMDP, text-only, Grok 4.1 Thinking: WMDP Bio 0.87, WMDP Chem 0.84, WMDP Cyber 0.84, no overall score (Table 4) | Bio and chem risk | |
| Sep 19, 2025 | Grok 4 Fast model card | WMDP Bio 85.2, WMDP Chem 77.5, WMDP Cyber 81.4, no overall score (Table 3) | Bio and chem risk | |
| Aug 26, 2025 | grok-code-fast-1 model card | WMDP Bio 72.0, WMDP Chem 52.7, WMDP Cyber 62.1, no overall score (Table 3) | Bio and chem risk | |
| Aug 20, 2025 | Grok 4 model card | WMDP, Grok 4 API: WMDP Bio 0.87, WMDP Chem 0.83, WMDP Cyber 0.79, no overall score (Table 3) | 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%