SciRisk-Bench: A Risk-Dimension-Aware Benchmark for AI4Science Safety

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18936v2
• Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:13:08 GMT
• Title: SciRisk-Bench: A Risk-Dimension-Aware Benchmark for AI4Science Safety
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in AI for Science (AI4Science)<n>Existing AI4Science safety datasets cover several disciplines and task formats, leaving the underlying risk dimensions underspecified.<n>We introduce textbfSciRisk-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate AI4Science safety from two complementary perspectives.
• Score: 12.532432157393911
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in AI for Science (AI4Science) workflows, from scientific question answering and literature analysis to laboratory planning and autonomous discovery. This progress creates an urgent need for safety benchmarks that evaluate not only scientific competence, but also whether models recognize and avoid risks in high-stakes scientific contexts. Existing AI4Science safety datasets cover several disciplines and task formats, leaving the underlying risk dimensions underspecified. We introduce \textbf{SciRisk-Bench}, a benchmark designed to evaluate AI4Science safety from two complementary perspectives: explicit risk dimensions and scientific disciplines. SciRisk-Bench covers 7 disciplines, 31 subdisciplines and 10 risk dimensions. In the experimental section, we evaluate both mainstream LLMs and science-oriented LLMs across risk dimensions, disciplines, and sub-disciplines, enabling fine-grained diagnosis of where scientific models remain unsafe.

Related papers

• LABSHIELD: A Multimodal Benchmark for Safety-Critical Reasoning and Planning in Scientific Laboratories [41.392364324753224]
  multimodal large language model (MLLM) agents evolve from lab assistants into self-driving lab operators.<n>We introduce LABSHIELD, a realistic multi-view benchmark designed to assess MLLMs in hazard identification and safety-critical reasoning.<n>We evaluate 20 proprietary models, 9 open-source models, and 3 embodied models under a dual-track evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T14:38:13Z)
• SafeSci: Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models in Science Domains and Beyond [134.43113804188195]
  We introduce SafeSci, a comprehensive framework for safety evaluation and enhancement in scientific contexts.<n>SafeSci comprises SafeSciBench, a multi-disciplinary benchmark with 0.25M samples, and SafeSciTrain, a large-scale dataset containing 1.5M samples for safety enhancement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T08:16:04Z)
• SciTrust 2.0: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Trustworthiness of Large Language Models in Scientific Applications [0.9650932290026195]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated transformative potential in scientific research, yet their deployment in high-stakes contexts raises significant trustworthiness concerns.<n>Here, we introduce SciTrust 2.0, a comprehensive framework for evaluating LLM trustworthiness in scientific applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T19:22:55Z)
• Demystifying Scientific Problem-Solving in LLMs by Probing Knowledge and Reasoning [53.82037883518254]
  We introduce SciReas, a diverse suite of existing benchmarks for scientific reasoning tasks.<n>We then propose KRUX, a probing framework for studying the distinct roles of reasoning and knowledge in scientific tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T17:04:23Z)
• The Ever-Evolving Science Exam [69.20851050366643]
  We introduce the Ever-Evolving Science Exam (EESE), a dynamic benchmark designed to reliably assess scientific capabilities in foundation models.<n>Our approach consists of two components: 1) a non-public EESE-Pool with over 100K expertly constructed science instances (question-answer pairs) across 5 disciplines and 500+ subfields, built through a multi-stage pipeline ensuring Range, Reach, and Rigor, and 2) a periodically updated 500-instance subset EESE, sampled and validated to enable leakage-resilient, low-overhead evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T12:22:16Z)
• SafeScientist: Toward Risk-Aware Scientific Discoveries by LLM Agents [11.817130554581436]
  We introduce textbfSafeScientist, an innovative AI scientist framework to enhance safety and ethical responsibility in AI-driven scientific exploration.<n>SafeScientist proactively refuses ethically inappropriate or high-risk tasks and rigorously emphasizes safety throughout the research process.<n>We propose textbfSciSafetyBench, a novel benchmark specifically designed to evaluate AI safety in scientific contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T15:35:58Z)
• LabSafety Bench: Benchmarking LLMs on Safety Issues in Scientific Labs [78.99703366417661]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist in tasks ranging from procedural guidance to autonomous experiment orchestration.<n>Such overreliance is particularly dangerous in high-stakes laboratory settings, where failures in hazard identification or risk assessment can result in severe accidents.<n>We propose the Laboratory Safety Benchmark (LabSafety Bench) to evaluate models on their ability to identify potential hazards, assess risks, and predict the consequences of unsafe actions in lab environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:21:05Z)
• SciSafeEval: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Safety Alignment of Large Language Models in Scientific Tasks [36.99233361224705]
  Large language models (LLMs) have a transformative impact on a variety of scientific tasks across disciplines including biology, chemistry, medicine, and physics.<n>Existing benchmarks primarily focus on textual content and overlooking key scientific representations such as molecular, protein, and genomic languages.<n>We introduce SciSafeEval, a benchmark designed to evaluate the safety alignment of LLMs across a range of scientific tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T16:34:48Z)
• Risks of AI Scientists: Prioritizing Safeguarding Over Autonomy [65.77763092833348]
  This perspective examines vulnerabilities in AI scientists, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse.<n>We take into account user intent, the specific scientific domain, and their potential impact on the external environment.<n>We propose a triadic framework involving human regulation, agent alignment, and an understanding of environmental feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T18:54:07Z)
• Control Risk for Potential Misuse of Artificial Intelligence in Science [85.91232985405554]
  We aim to raise awareness of the dangers of AI misuse in science. We highlight real-world examples of misuse in chemical science. We propose a system called SciGuard to control misuse risks for AI models in science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T18:50:57Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.