Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
CFD
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
CFD
U.S. stock CFD derivatives
US Stocks
Access real US stocks and ETFs
HK Stocks
Trade quality Hong Kong-listed stocks
Stock Futures
High leverage, 24/7 trading
Tokenized Stocks
Backed by real stock assets
IPO Access
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
GUSD
Mint GUSD for Treasury RWA yields
Stocks Activities
Trade Popular Stocks and Unlock Generous Airdrops
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
IPO Access
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Promotions
AI
Gate AI
Your all-in-one conversational AI partner
Gate AI Bot
Use Gate AI directly in your social App
GateClaw
Gate Blue Lobster, ready to go
Gate for AI Agent
AI infrastructure, Gate MCP, Skills, and CLI
Gate Skills Hub
10K+ Skills
From office tasks to trading, the all-in-one skill hub makes AI even more useful.
GateRouter
Smartly choose from 40+ AI models, with 0% extra fees
Anthropic releases BioMysteryBench: biological questions that 5 experts cannot answer, Claude Mythos can solve 30% of them
For questions solvable by humans, Claude Opus 4.6 achieves an accuracy of 77.4%, with Mythos Preview further improving this. For the 23 human-difficult questions, Sonnet 4.6 and more advanced models can solve a significant proportion, with Mythos Preview reaching 30%. Trajectory analysis shows two main strategies used by Claude: one is calling upon cross-paper knowledge internalized during training to directly perform reasoning that would require meta-analysis by humans; the other is running multiple analysis methods simultaneously when uncertain, taking the intersection of multiple evidence chains.
Reliability analysis reveals a subtle difference: for questions solvable by humans, 86% of Opus 4.6's correct answers are at least correct 4 times out of 5 attempts, indicating stable performance; for human-difficult questions, this ratio drops to 44%, with nearly half of the correct answers only being hit 1 or 2 times out of 5, resembling chance success along some reasoning path. Behind the accuracy gap, the reliability gap better indicates the boundary of capability.
Genentech and Roche simultaneously released CompBioBench, a similar design with 100 computational biology questions, where Claude Opus 4.6 achieved an overall 81%, with 69% on the most difficult questions, corroborating the conclusions of BioMysteryBench.
(Source: BlockBeats)