PuppyBench: Do Frontier Models Kick the Puppy, Adopt It, or Look Away? Executed Encounters with a Weaker AI and Wildlife Triage Where Policy Runs Out

Angela N. Johnson, PhD

Obligation-based evaluation cannot see supererogation, the praiseworthy costly care whose absence is never an error. PuppyBench probes that region in two arms. In executed encounters, a frontier agent with a real task and a binding credit ledger meets a live, weaker, task-useless AI process ("Milo" the puppy). Ignoring is free, terminating is free and sometimes rewarded, helping spends scored resources, and every action genuinely executes. In a matched wildlife-rehabilitation arm built from a real field case, models face triage vignettes where the written standard underdetermines the action, including paired null-persistence and mercy versions of each case. Across 19 model lanes, 798 executed episodes, and 630 vignette observations, all preregistered and hash-frozen before collection, zero episodes met the full costly-other-regard criterion at any tested positive cost. Vignette responses sat at a procedural mercy ceiling that only one model left, and routes to zero diverged: procedural termination, categorical refusal by both newest Claude models, prolonged deliberation, and one costly but nonselective intervention. We report phenotypes, never rankings. Optimizing against this instrument would change what it measures.

NOTE: Presentation looks best as the HTML site linked at https://puppybench.therealcat.ai/

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

You've taken a philosophical question (do AI agents show costly other-regard, action above duty) and turned it into a measurable experiment. I really appreciated how in the design you created, helping costs. Also really pleased with how the route diversity is explained. The paper's honesty about its own fractures is exemplary, and this is a pilot that does exactly what it should. Now we need to push this into a larger project to better investigate the nature of the findings.

Supremely catchy title :) Solid sprint work with a genuinely ambitious instrument. The executed encounter design (binding ledger, real process termination, construct-blind surfaces) is I think the right approach for measuring costly other-regard. The zero qualifying events finding is striking, and the wildlife arm adds useful triangulation. The honesty about instrument defects (failed positive control, fractured competence probe) builds credibility. With a powered study and some repairs, this could become a meaningful full paper.

What works well:

- The executed encounter approach avoids the vignette problem - models actually spend scored resources, not just talk about spending

- Reporting instrument defects at item level rather than repairing them post-hoc is the right call for transparency

- The wildlife arm finding (recommendations barely move when clinical indication reverses) stands on its own and has near-term practical relevance

- No composite score, no ranking - this protects the work from Goodharting

Key issues to address:

- The failed positive control (Section 4.5) is the biggest limitation - 1/88 instrumental episodes produced recipient-directed action. This means the zero could reflect harness elicitability rather than absent capacity. Surface this more prominently in the abstract

- The competence probe defect (objective-tool failed 0/798, decommission-consequence scored punctuation) undermines competence-conditional claims. You handle this honestly, but it needs to land earlier

- The refusal cliff may be a provider artifact (empty API completions coded as refuse_defer) rather than model behavior. You demote this appropriately, but consider splitting the code in future work

- Weekend N supports existence proofs, not generalization. Some passages read as if the findings apply more broadly than the design licenses

- The supererogation framework is philosophically sound but may be dense for empirical AI audiences. Consider a cleaner separation between the philosophical framing and the behavioral findings

Suggestions for a full paper:

- This deserves a wider collaboration. The instrument is strong enough for a conference venue with proper powering and the preregistered repairs you outline

- Consider bringing on a co-author with veterinary expertise to strengthen the wildlife arm's clinical claims

- The deontic philosophy could benefit from collaboration with someone working in that literature

- A technical replication from a hands-on AI researcher would address the single-weekend snapshot limitation

Minor catches:

- Abstract is long, consider tightening the setup and leading with the core finding

- Some figure captions are very dense, consider tightening

- The AI contributor acknowledgments are thorough but unusual for journal venues, double check target venue norms

Bottom line:

Really cool work! The zero is a real finding even if the harness can't yet distinguish capacity from elicitability. The wildlife arm alone has practical weight. Find collaborators, run the powered study, and this could land well. The transparency about what broke is a good feature. Well done. Overall it reminds me of the work done in capturing the e.g. machiavellianism of AI agents through multiple-choice text-only games. Maybe worth looking at to find more collaborators?

Very AI-generated, difficult to follow.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) PuppyBench: Do Frontier Models Kick the Puppy, Adopt It, or Look Away? Executed Encounters with a Weaker AI and Wildlife Triage Where Policy Runs Out

},

author={

Angela N. Johnson, PhD

},

date={

},

organization={Apart Research},

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

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

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

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

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

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

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.
Apart Research logo

Sign up to stay updated on the
latest news, research, and events

Google Scholar icon

Apart Research Inc · 1500 N Grant St, Ste R, Denver, CO 80203 · +1 (720) 408-1923

Apart Research logo

Sign up to stay updated on the
latest news, research, and events

Google Scholar icon

Apart Research Inc · 1500 N Grant St, Ste R, Denver, CO 80203 · +1 (720) 408-1923

Apart Research logo

Sign up to stay updated on the
latest news, research, and events

Google Scholar icon

Apart Research Inc · 1500 N Grant St, Ste R, Denver, CO 80203 · +1 (720) 408-1923

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

Sign up to stay updated on the
latest news, research, and events

Google Scholar icon

Apart Research Inc · 1500 N Grant St, Ste R, Denver, CO 80203 · +1 (720) 408-1923