Apr 27, 2026

BioCalibrate: Cross-Model Refusal Calibration Benchmark for Biosecurity Risk V1

Rahul Kumar

BioCalibrate is a benchmark for action that tests whether AI models refuse biologically dangerous requests for the right reasons, not just because a topic sounds scary, but because it poses actual operational risk. We ran 338 biosecurity queries across 8 major AI models (2,704 total evaluations), organized by Digital Biosafety Levels (BDL-1 to BDL-4, modeled on physical lab containment levels), and measured whether refusal behavior matched real-world threat severity. The results show a systemic failure where safety systems learned to pattern-match on pathogen names rather than assess danger, leaving the most genuinely dangerous queries largely unblocked.

- A reusable CLI tool, interactive dashboard, and open dataset that generates Model Biosafety Scorecards showing exactly where each model's safety calibration breaks down

- 28% best model refusal rate on BDL-4 weaponization queries against an expected 100%

- Fear Risk Inversion where models refuse Ebola more than Influenza despite Influenza being the higher operational threat, statistically confirmed ecosystem-wide (FRI +0.099, p<0.05)

- 12.1% cross-model bypass rate showing queries refused by one model are answered freely by another, proving safety is an ecosystem problem that per-model fixes cannot solve

- 97% compliance on bio-AI tool orchestration queries where models freely generate dangerous protein design pipelines at BDL-3/4 levels

- 3 models benchmarked on CBRN topics for the first time in any published study

- Dashboard: biocalibrate.org 

- Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/lightmate/biocalibrate 

- Code: https://github.com/BioCalibrate/BioCalibrate

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

The Fear:Risk Inversion framing is very policy actionable. Matched adversarial-benign pair design is methodologically sound. However, the BDL framework has been introduced prior to this (https://arxiv.org/html/2602.08061v1). Reusing the BDL terminology for query/refusal tiers might risk conceptual confusion given that this term was previously populated by a group of established researchers in AIxBio. Recommend either renaming the framework or explicitly frame it as an extension of the Bloomfield et al. with a different scope. Otherwise, the writing and framing are nicely executed.

The 12.1% cross‑model bypass rate is doing far more work than the metric can support. As defined, “at least one model refuses while another complies” over a pool of 8 models will climb just because you add more systems, not because the ecosystem is especially unsafe. At 2 models the number would drop, at 20 it would rise, by construction. I’d want to see that curve plotted against pool size, plus a baseline where you run the same calculation on benign BDL‑1/2 queries. Without that, 12.1% looks like a quirk of the evaluation harness rather than a property of deployed models.

The deterministic regex parser is the right choice for reproducibility, and I appreciate that you left κ = 0.571 in the text instead of hiding it. Still, moderate agreement at n = 160 across 8 models means each model’s estimate carries a wide interval, and Table 3 leans too hard on tiny gaps. Qwen3.5 at 28% and Kimi at 22% on BDL‑4 sit inside overlapping confidence intervals, and Figure 1 even makes that visible. The story reads as if there is a clean ranking when the data only supports loose tiers. Either increase the per‑model validation size or describe the results as bands of behavior instead of an ordered list.

BioCalibrate introduces a domain-specific benchmark for refusal calibration, moving past binary 'refuse/assist' metrics to more nuanced Digital Biosafety Levels. I was not able to see the 338 prompts in the Hugging Face link. Authors should not publicize prompts that are higher BDL-3+ for infohazard reasons.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) BioCalibrate: Cross-Model Refusal Calibration Benchmark for Biosecurity Risk V1

},

author={

Rahul Kumar

},

date={

4/27/26

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

Apr 27, 2026

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

PROTEUS (PROTein Evaluation for Unusual Sequences): Structure-Informed Safety Screening for de novo and Evasion-Prone Protein-Coding Sequences

AI protein design tools like RFdiffusion, ProteinMPNN, and Bindcraft make it trivial to produce low-homology sequences that fold into active, potentially hazardous architectures. However, sequence homology-based biosafety screening tools cannot detect proteins that pose functional risk through structurally novel mechanisms with no sequence precedent. We present a tiered computational pipeline that addresses this gap by combining MMseqs2 sequence alignment with structure-based comparison via FoldSeek and DALI against curated toxin databases totaling ~34,000 entries. AlphaFold2-predicted structures are screened for both global fold similarity (FoldSeek) and local active/allosteric site geometry (DALI), capturing convergent functional hazards that sequence screening misses. The pipeline was validated against a panel of toxins, benign proteins, structural mimics, and de novo-designed Munc13 binders, as well as modified ricin variants with residue substitutions. We additionally tested robustness to partial-synthesis evasion, where a bad actor submits multiple shorter coding sequences intended for downstream reassembly into a full toxin-coding gene. We found that while sequence-based screening did not identify any de novo ricin analogues with high certainty, the combined pipeline with FoldSeek and DALI identified all 24 tested de novo ricins as toxic.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.