Jan 20, 2025

Neural Seal

Kailash Balasubramaniyam, Mohammed Areeb Aliku, Eden Simkins

Neural Seal is an AI transparency solution that creates a standardized labeling framework—akin to “nutrition facts” or “energy efficiency ratings”—to inform users how AI is deployed in products or services.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

I like the idea of pushing for this scale for end-consumer use. A few points: What are the incentives from relevant stakeholder? It seems like the current solution is only a questionnaire. Right now the only reason why someone at t company fills out a questionnaire is compliance or PR. Both are currently not given, so time might be best spend to look at where legislation is on this and who might be closest to adopting such a standard and what is in the way. I really like the mention of LIME and SHAP, I think it would have been very cool to have them included in the demo/product. That would seems like the most interesting part of this project, unless you are very keen and involved on the policy side of things. With this project there is definitely a risk of just becoming unnessecary overhead for the adoption of normal AI, while not addressing actual existential risk (like the cookie banner), so that would need to be kept in mind. Would spend most of my energy in finding someone who this is useful for, maybe in policy or maybe for some internal AI governance/risk teams at large enterprises.

The proposal introduces Neural Seal, an AI transparency solution that creates a standardized labeling framework of “nutrition facts” that inform users on the level of AI involvement in products or services. Visibility for AI involvement is limited but necessary in many domains like finance, healthcare, and social media, and Neural Seal aims to create a universal labeling standard for AI transparency. The solution involves a standardized structural evaluation with a multi-step questionnaire on the level of AI usage and generating a color-coded rating (A/B/C/D) that represents AI involvement in a digestible manner. The team showcases a demo build of the questionnaire and mockups of the labeling system, along with a yearly plan for building a prototype, integrating interpretability techniques, and widespread adoption of the standardization metrics.

I think this is a great idea! The proposal highlights an important need and the team understands that the consumer-facing aspect of their product requires simple and intuitive metrics and ratings. Some things to consider that can greatly strengthen the proposal:

1. Different industries and use-cases can be classified as low/medium/high risk and might require different rubrics to assess the impact of AI involvement

2. Some guidelines or information on how the level of AI involvement is categorized can be helpful for companies filling out the proposal

3. Details on the breakdown of different areas and how the AI usage in these areas is categorized, along with how the impact score can be calculated would add a strong algorithmic component to the proposal

4. The vision of creating a singular standardized metric across all industries might require extended research. I would suggest starting with a few use cases and showing some proof of concept for those areas (which might require different metrics, language, and jargon that the area-specific target users are familiar with) and using the insights to inform what a universal standardized metric might look like.

5. Some visual indication of the AI involvement (like chemical/bio/fire hazard symbols on instruments and chemicals) can be an additional way to showcase the rating in an accessible manner.

6. On the technical side, using a react-based framework can be relatively easy to implement and flexible to modify and build upon, maybe using Claude can be helpful since it can natively render react components.

7. For explainable AI methods, it might be important to consider other interpretability approaches that have shown great promise for large language models (like patching, probing, SAEs, etc) since future systems will most definitely include an LLM/multimodal AI-based agent, and explainable AI methods like LIME/SHAP that are compliance supported might not be sufficient to explain the inner working of these highly capable systems.

I might have more comments and suggestions, so feel free to reach if you need any further feedback. Good luck to the team!

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Neural Seal

},

author={

Kailash Balasubramaniyam, Mohammed Areeb Aliku, Eden Simkins

},

date={

1/20/25

},

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.