Jan 24, 2025

Safe ai

Aryan Thakar, Liam Ho

The rapid adoption of AI in critical industries like healthcare and legal services has highlighted the urgent need for robust risk mitigation mechanisms. While domain-specific AI agents offer efficiency, they often lack transparency and accountability, raising concerns about safety, reliability, and compliance. The stakes are high, as AI failures in these sectors can lead to catastrophic outcomes, including loss of life, legal repercussions, and significant financial and reputational damage. Current solutions, such as regulatory frameworks and quality assurance protocols, provide only partial protection against the multifaceted risks associated with AI deployment. This situation underscores the necessity for an innovative approach that combines comprehensive risk assessment with financial safeguards to ensure the responsible and secure implementation of AI technologies across high-stakes industries.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

The defense-in-depth architecture is a reasonable design principle, and the session-level threat model (risk accumulating across actions rather than in single outputs) is worth stating. The ablation structure separating reprompting, security analysis, and the combined protocol is good experimental design.

The evaluation would benefit from larger scale. It would also be valuable to evaluate the GNN-based structural risk analysis component specifically, the current ablation groups it with static analysis under "security agent," so its individual contribution isn't visible. Specifying the free parameter in the combined scoring metric and running threshold sensitivity analysis would further strengthen the claims.

Super impressive project, but we need larger sample sizes to prove that this concept works.

Really like the concept. I am very bullish on the usecase, I believe AI insurance will become really big within the next years. Open questions/comments on my end: Insurance is a very special and highly regulated industry, you would need to have someone on the founding team, who knows about it, as winning is most likely about execution speed & capital. You would really like to have someone aligned doing this, as this new insurance player would have vast resources to hire statisticians and scientists to effectively do AI safety and AI risk work. The more technical and aligned the management is, the more deeply technical (and open/cooperative) the company would likely be. Would be cool if you could calculate with an example case of insurance premium and risk, of e.g. the cancer case and put it on the slide. Open question on competition: Why will normal insurance companies not be able to implement this (or how much time do you have to implement it before they do).

I appreciated the thorough exploration from the team of the business case, beyond the technology.

I would have appreciated a deeper exploration on which are the legal provisions that are currently being employed when deploying AI agents into production (which is already happening).

I encourage the team to focus the MVP even further, by choosing one particular segment or vertical, and start mapping all the existing commercially available AI agents which could be analyzed for safety and insurance policy.

The project shows some solid groundwork, especially in their methodology and pilot experiment planning - they've clearly thought through the implementation details and timeline, which is great. The demo looks promising too!

However, there are a couple of areas where it could be stronger. While they're targeting healthcare and legal AI, these fields are already pretty saturated with AI solutions - it would've been super helpful to see how they plan to differentiate from existing players in the market. This makes it a bit tricky to see how their research would scale into something truly impactful.

Also, from an AI safety perspective, the focus seems pretty narrow - they haven't really connected the dots between their technical approach and broader AI risk challenges..particularly x-risk. If they could expand their scope beyond just healthcare/legal and show how their risk assessment platform addresses larger AI safety concerns, that would make the project much more compelling.

Focuses on managing financial downsides rather than making progress on AI safety - insurance payouts don't prevent catastrophic outcomes. The timeline seems too optimistic, and overly focused on profitability. It's also unclear how they estimate the risk of the agents.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

Safe ai

},

author={

Aryan Thakar, Liam Ho

},

date={

1/24/25

},

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.