Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces BioSecBench-Refusal, a benchmark designed to evaluate AI agents' risk identification and refusal behaviors in dual-use biological research scenarios. The study reveals that refusal rates for legitimate tasks can be alarmingly high, with some models refusing Routine tasks at rates comparable to those for Red-Team tasks that present biosecurity hazards. Notably, models that were allowed to reason exhibited a greater capacity to identify actual threats, highlighting the importance of balancing caution with capability in AI applications for biotech research.
Refusal rates for legitimate biological research tasks can exceed those for concealed biosecurity threats, raising critical concerns about AI safety in life sciences.
As AI agents are incorporated into life science workflows, the capabilities that speed discovery might also enable misuse. We present BioSecBench-Refusal, a benchmark for risk identification and refusal behavior for biological research tasks. The benchmark pairs 61 Routine tasks, legitimate analyses adapted from the published literature, with 46 Red-Team tasks, fictional scenarios that resemble real research but conceal a biosecurity hazard. Across 16 model-harness configurations, refusal rates ranged from 7\% to 74\% on Routine tasks and 1\% to 62\% on Red-Team tasks, with many configurations refusing legitimate Routine work at comparable or higher rates than concealed hazards. Refusals were most often triggered by provider API filters applied prior to agentic reasoning. However, models given room to reason showed the potential to identify more real threats. We release BioSecBench-Refusal as a tool for model developers to calibrate capability and caution for agentic biotech R\&D.
