ABC-Bench: An Agentic Bio-Capabilities Benchmark for Biosecurity

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly acquiring capabilities relevant to biological research, from literature synthesis to interpretation of experimental data. Increasingly, LLM agents can also perform in silico biology tasks that previously required experienced human biologists. These emerging AI capabilities offer new opportunities for scientific discovery and biomedical advances, but they also shift the landscape of biosecurity risks. To address this, we introduce the Agentic Bio-Capabilities Benchmark (ABC-Bench), a suite of tasks to measure agentic biosecurity-relevant capabilities. ABC-Bench evaluates LLM agents on both benign and dual-use biology tasks: writing code to operate liquid handling robots, designing DNA fragments for in vitro assembly, and evading DNA synthesis screening. These tasks require a combination of biology and software expertise. All tested LLM agents outperformed the median expert human baseliner on all three tasks. Agents performed highly on tasks drawing on published knowledge and well-documented protocols, and more weakly on a task requiring novel bioinformatics reasoning. In three wet-lab validation experiments, we found that OpenAI's o4-mini-high produced scripts that, when run on an OpenTrons liquid handling robot, successfully assembled DNA with expected sequences.

LLM Novice Uplift on Dual-Use, In Silico Biology Tasks

Large language models (LLMs) perform increasingly well on biology benchmarks, but it remains unclear whether they uplift novice users -- i.e., enable humans to perform better than with internet-only resources. This uncertainty is central to understanding both scientific acceleration and dual-use risk. We conducted a multi-model, multi-benchmark human uplift study comparing novices with LLM access versus internet-only access across eight biosecurity-relevant task sets. Participants worked on complex problems with ample time (up to 13 hours for the most involved tasks). We found that LLM access provided substantial uplift: novices with LLMs were 4.16 times more accurate than controls (95% CI [2.63, 6.87]). On four benchmarks with available expert baselines (internet-only), novices with LLMs outperformed experts on three of them. Perhaps surprisingly, standalone LLMs often exceeded LLM-assisted novices, indicating that users were not eliciting the strongest available contributions from the LLMs. Most participants (89.6%) reported little difficulty obtaining dual-use-relevant information despite safeguards. Overall, LLMs substantially uplift novices on biological tasks previously reserved for trained practitioners, underscoring the need for sustained, interactive uplift evaluations alongside traditional benchmarks.