What is a welfare self-report evidence of?

Helios Lyons

Distributional analysis of welfare-checks in Gemma 2 -base and -it 9b variants.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

This is an unusually thoughtful construct-validity study. Its strongest contribution is not the below-argmax rating method itself, but the ownership control: the same success or failure evidence shifts the output distribution when attributed to the model, but not when attributed to another assistant. Completing the attribution-by-transcript-layout design, defining refuting outcomes in advance, retaining negative results, and allowing the state/trait test to overturn the original interpretation demonstrate excellent research discipline. The constant emitted “7” alongside substantial distributional movement is also a memorable warning about relying solely on decoded interview transcripts.

The evidence supports a narrow conclusion: Gemma-2-9B-IT performs a self-attribution-gated, below-argmax self-evaluation update. It does not establish that the distribution reflects welfare or an internal feeling, and the paper appropriately acknowledges this. The main limitations are that the central result uses one checkpoint, one primary state question, planted rather than naturally generated failures, ten constructed task families, and no independent replication. The trait conclusion depends on only two unsaturated items with different wrappers, so “a broad revision of everything the model rates about itself” is somewhat too broad. A preregistered replication across model families, substantially larger state/trait batteries, naturally occurring outcomes, and activation-level causal analysis would make this a significant foundation for welfare-assessment methodology.

Interesting work, and very accessibly written. Good experimental design with a genuine contribution (the attribution control). The finding that trait items moved more than state items should disqualify the state-report interpretation, but the evidence is too thin to carry that weight. The distributional approach is right, but one model family and no independent replication limits what this establishes.

Core issues:

- The state/trait conclusion rests on two trait items. That is not enough to claim the state-report reading is "disqualified." Either expand the battery or temper to preliminary evidence.

- No independent replication. Same checkpoint, deterministic pipeline, no new items or families. This is a proof of concept, not an established effect. You might need collaborators to turn this into a full paper.

- Base/instruct comparison does not actually work. Rating items fail format screening on base (digit mass 0.225), so the stance and situation effects live on different checkpoints. You cannot draw conclusions about how welfare interviews inherit these properties

- The attribution gate is the strongest finding but sits buried in Section 4.2. This should be the headline, not the distributional method

- Planted failures rather than model-generated ones means you cannot separate "tracks own outcomes" from "conditions on checker token in self-attributed slot"

Suggestions:

- Test on Gemma 2B and 27B to show scaling. Add a second model family for generality.

- The attribution gate likely has a mechanistic signature. Consider collaboration with someone doing activation patching.

- Expand the trait battery before claiming the state interpretation is disqualified.

- For conference submission, lead with the attribution finding, not the method.

Bottom line:

This is a nice proof of concept with one genuinely useful finding (attribution gates the effect). The distributional approach is the right level of analysis. But the state/trait claim outruns the evidence, and without replication this stays a sprint contribution rather than a full paper. Tighten the claims, replicate on a second family, and this becomes something this newly developing field can build on.

The report covers a series of explorations in self reports. My biggest concern would be that the target model (gemma-2-9b) is not sufficiently capable for this analysis (e.g., one likely response for why it always rates 7 as the most likely response is because it is just too incapable of integrating the context).

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) What is a welfare self-report evidence of?

},

author={

Helios Lyons

},

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