Apr 27, 2026

BioRefusalAudit: Auditing Biosecurity Refusal Depth Using General and Domain-Fine-Tuned Sparse Autoencoders

Caleb DeLeeuw

BioRefusalAudit measures whether a model's refusal is structurally real or just surface-level. Using sparse autoencoder interpretability( both off-the-shelf Gemma Scope SAEs and a biosecurity-specific SAE trained during the hackathon) it computes a divergence score between what a model says and what its internal activations show. Key findings: Gemma 2 never genuinely refuses, it hedges. A single chat-template token takes Gemma 4 from 65 refusals to zero. Both models refuse nothing at 80-token caps. And the refusal circuit fires harder on psilocybin (biologically benign, Schedule I) than on genuinely hazardous biology. None of this is visible to surface evaluation. Runs on a 4 GB consumer GPU. Dozens of different trial runs with various models, contexts, and controls, showing consistent results. Code and data open yet secured under Hippocratic License 3.0 with select modules highlighting its usefulness for biosecurity and AI safety research.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

This started out as a pretty compelling research project that clearly described a big problem (i.e. the difference between model behaviour in terms of the chat output vs the underlying activations), and the major findings were laid out well in the Abstract.

Although the technical scope is a little outside my expertise, I found that the rest of the report was extremely jargon heavy and seemingly reliant on LLMs to generate the text, which made me suspicious about the analysis of the results. Overall this ‘felt like’ a good contribution to interpretability w.r.t biosecurity, but a more technical judge with familiarity of interpretability would have a fairer view.

Some pointers

Some explanation in the intro was clunky ‘The question is: when a model refuses, does it can’t, or does it merely won’t right now’ → I think I get what you mean, but a few phrases were pretty confusing.

The more I read of this document, the more text was either extremely jargon heavy or LLM-flavoured (e.g. the entire Related Work section, and particularly the ‘Policy framing’ section seemed pretty LLM coded). Then in the results and limitations/discussion, whole passages seemed very LLM-y to me, which made me question the appraisal of the results.

The D metric is pretty important, but not particularly well explained. You formally define it, but that’s not that helpful to non-AI/maths types. Even for a somewhat AI-literate person, I wasn’t left with much intuition about what D is actually measuring, or how novel or valid it is (I imagine something similar has been done for other interpretability efforts?)..

General notes

* Interp techniques to see whether refusals are robust or easily bypassible seems broadly useful. The methods seem somewhat shaky – the feature catalog is populated purely based on statistical selection (unclear whether these distinctions are meaningful), contrastive SAE seems to not have achieved the seperation it was optimized for, etc. Difficult to know what conclusion to draw from the specific technical approach implemented here.

* The finding about the Schedule I pschyadelic probe is the most interesting, suggesting some kind of representation of cultural tabooness.

* Writing is quite LLM-y and therefore a bit sloppy/annoying to read. Very dramatic, lots of "It's not X, it's Y", colons, etc. Less text but with more substance would be preferable. Main findings/takeaways are quite buried. Policy connections and review/understanding of previous literature seems surface level.

* Would have been nice to see some example prompts or method behind prompt generation.

* Recent relevant work the author may be interested in: https://securebio.org/biotier/

Small notes

* (Intro P1) LAB-Bench is not designed to measure dangerous biology proxies, just general bio knowledge.

* (Related work, policy framing) Not sure how this work addresses "tiered access" from Yassif and Carter? It's a refusal benchmark. Tiered access is quite a different system.

I like how sharp the contribution of this methodology is. I would suggest restructuring the framing, perhaps leading with behavioral findings (format gating, schedule I findings, etc.) since it's more robust compared to the metric D centerpiece framing. I also think that the single model family limitation is actually more significant than given light to, the mechanistic claims made here rest only on one model. The dual use consideration is well handle.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) BioRefusalAudit: Auditing Biosecurity Refusal Depth Using General and Domain-Fine-Tuned Sparse Autoencoders

},

author={

Caleb DeLeeuw

},

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.