Measuring Biological Capabilities and Risks of AI Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19899v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 07:54:51 GMT
• Title: Measuring Biological Capabilities and Risks of AI Agents
• Abstract summary: Decision-makers increasingly face evaluation results whose meaning depends on underlying design choices that are often implicit or under-documented.<n>We synthesize current evidence on AI-enabled biological risks and introduce biological agentic evaluations as a promising, but interpretation-sensitive, tool for assessing these systems.<n>Our central contribution is a set of practical, experience-grounded considerations that show how choices around defining, designing, running, scoring, and documenting evaluations materially shape what results do and do not imply about risk.
• Score: 0.1631115063641726
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper addresses a rapidly emerging policy challenge: how to generate and interpret credible evidence about the biological capabilities and risks of AI scientists, or agentic AI systems capable of autonomously or collaboratively performing multi-step scientific tasks. As these systems enter real research workflows, decision-makers increasingly face evaluation results whose meaning depends on underlying design choices that are often implicit or under-documented. We synthesize current evidence on AI-enabled biological risks and introduce biological agentic evaluations as a promising, but interpretation-sensitive, tool for assessing these systems. Our central contribution is a set of practical, experience-grounded considerations -- drawing from our own evaluations -- that show how choices around defining, designing, running, scoring, and documenting evaluations materially shape what results do and do not imply about risk. The analysis is intended to help policymakers interpret biological evaluation outputs with appropriate caution; guide public and private funders toward high-leverage investments in AI-biology evaluation research; and support biosecurity practitioners assessing emerging AI systems. A secondary audience includes researchers designing or conducting agentic evaluations within frontier AI labs, AI providers, scientific institutions, and third-party evaluation organizations.

Related papers

• Benchmarking AI Agents for Addressing Scientific Challenges Across Scales [118.2204632627895]
  SciAgentArena is a systematic benchmark for evaluating AI agents in real-world scientific research scenarios.<n>It comprises approximately 200 tasks with stepwise verification and an interactive, agent-agnostic environment for assessing diverse AI agents.<n>We find that current agents can contribute effectively to well-specified data-analysis, particularly when the task structure and evaluation criteria are clear.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T22:55:30Z)
• Towards a Medical AI Scientist [73.6056699962416]
  We introduce Medical AI Scientist, the first autonomous research framework tailored to clinical autonomous research.<n>The framework operates under 3 research modes, namely paper-based reproduction, literature-inspired innovation, and task-driven exploration.<n>Our system achieves strong alignment between the proposed method and its implementation, while also demonstrating significantly higher success rates in executable experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-30T15:37:25Z)
• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• Jr. AI Scientist and Its Risk Report: Autonomous Scientific Exploration from a Baseline Paper [23.009743151474638]
  Jr. AI Scientist is a state-of-the-art autonomous AI scientist system that mimics the core research workflow of a novice student researcher.<n>It generates new research papers that build upon real NeurIPS, IJCV, and ICLR works by proposing and implementing novel methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T17:37:49Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Agentic AI for Scientific Discovery: A Survey of Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions [0.0]
  Agentic AI systems are capable of reasoning, planning, and autonomous decision-making.<n>They are transforming how scientists perform literature review, generate hypotheses, conduct experiments, and analyze results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T01:00:05Z)
• EARBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents [53.717918131568936]
  Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction.<n>Foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning have shown promising results.<n>However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges.<n>This study introduces EARBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T13:19:37Z)
• Evaluating AI Evaluation: Perils and Prospects [8.086002368038658]
  This paper contends that the prevalent evaluation methods for these systems are fundamentally inadequate. I argue that a reformation is required in the way we evaluate AI systems and that we should look towards cognitive sciences for inspiration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T12:37:13Z)
• Testing autonomous vehicles and AI: perspectives and challenges from cybersecurity, transparency, robustness and fairness [53.91018508439669]
  The study explores the complexities of integrating Artificial Intelligence into Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) It examines the challenges introduced by AI components and the impact on testing procedures. The paper identifies significant challenges and suggests future directions for research and development of AI in AV technology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T08:29:42Z)
• Towards Risk Analysis of the Impact of AI on the Deliberate Biological Threat Landscape [0.0]
  The perception that the convergence of biological engineering and artificial intelligence could enable increased biorisk has drawn attention to the governance of biotechnology and artificial intelligence. The 2023 Executive Order, Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, requires an assessment of how artificial intelligence can increase biorisk. The perspective concludes by noting that assessment and evaluation methodologies must keep pace with advances of AI in the life sciences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T13:35:16Z)
• Assessing AI Impact Assessments: A Classroom Study [14.768235460961876]
  Artificial Intelligence Impact Assessments ("AIIAs"), a family of tools that provide structured processes to imagine the possible impacts of a proposed AI system, have become an increasingly popular proposal to govern AI systems. Recent efforts from government or private-sector organizations have proposed many diverse instantiations of AIIAs, which take a variety of forms ranging from open-ended questionnaires to graded score-cards. We conduct a classroom study at a large research-intensive university (R1) in an elective course focused on the societal and ethical implications of AI. We find preliminary evidence that impact assessments can influence participants' perceptions of the potential
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-19T01:00:59Z)

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.