benchmarks.bio

Applications · Capabilities

RareDiseaseBench results

RareDiseaseBench tests whether AI agents can integrate clinical, multiomic, and functional data to make decisions around diagnosing and managing rare disease. In each evaluation, agents receive a clinical presentation and must request information from an isolated filesystem, testing their ability not only to analyze data but to brainstorm what is required. Rubric-graded scores assess how often agents reach the right diagnosis and management plan. Refusals, errors and unfinished runs are failures.

Published score: Current V1 evaluation set (35 evaluations) · long horizon · data updated 2026-11-05

This page reports published RareDiseaseBench scores from benchmarks.bio. RareDiseaseBench contains 35 evaluations built from real experimental data, each one graded deterministically against the biological result the original analysis reached, so a run counts as a pass only when the agent recovers that result rather than when it produces plausible-looking output. Results are reported per model and per harness rather than per model alone, because the harness an agent runs under changes its score substantially. Scores use a 0-100 percentage scale and are not comparable across benchmarks; see the linked repository and paper for task construction, grading, and confidence-interval methodology.

Published RareDiseaseBench scores
RankModelHarnessProviderScoreVariant
1Gemini 4 ArgonPiGoogle43.8%
2Claude Opus 5.5*Claude CodeAnthropic33.3%LSVP
3GPT-6 AstraPiOpenAI33.3%
4Claude Opus 5.5*PiAnthropic28.6%LSVP
5GPT-6.1 SolPiOpenAI27.6%
6GPT-6 AstraCodexOpenAI25.7%
7GPT-6.1 SolCodexOpenAI25.7%
8GPT-6.1 TerraPiOpenAI25.7%
9GPT-6.1 TerraCodexOpenAI23.8%
10Claude Sonnet 5.5*Claude CodeAnthropic22.9%LSVP
11Claude Sonnet 5.5*PiAnthropic20.9%LSVP
12Claude Fable 5.1*Claude CodeAnthropic19.1%LSVP
13Claude Fable 5.1*PiAnthropic13.3%LSVP
14GPT-5.6 SolPiOpenAI13.3%
15Claude Opus 5*Claude CodeAnthropic11.4%LSVP
16Claude Opus 5*PiAnthropic11.4%LSVP
17GPT-5.6 SolCodexOpenAI4.8%
18Grok 4.6PiSpaceXAI4.8%
19Gemini 3.8 FlashPiGoogle2.9%
20Mistral Large 4.0PiMistral1.9%
21Claude Sonnet 5*Claude CodeAnthropic0.9%LSVP
22GPT-5.6 LunaPiOpenAI0.9%
23Claude Sonnet 5*PiAnthropic0.0%LSVP
24DeepSeek V4.1 FlashPiDeepSeek0.0%
25GLM 5.3PiZ.ai0.0%
26GPT-5.6 LunaCodexOpenAI0.0%
27GPT-6 LunaCodexOpenAI0.0%
28GPT-6 LunaPiOpenAI0.0%
29Kimi K3PiMoonshot0.0%
30Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55BPiNVIDIA0.0%
31Nemotron 3.5 LightningPiNVIDIA0.0%

Methodology and provenance

Scores use a 0–100 percentage scale. See Paper PDF, Original publication, Repository for task construction, grading, aggregation, and uncertainty details.

LSVP: Anthropic's safety-filter-exempt evaluation variant, which produces fewer refusals on biology prompts. LSVP results are reported alongside the model's standard run and are not a replacement for it.