Best Practices for Biorisk Evaluations on Open-Weight Bio-Foundation Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Open-weight bio-foundation models present a dual-use dilemma. While holding great promise for accelerating scientific research and drug development, they could also enable bad actors to develop more deadly bioweapons. To mitigate the risk posed by these models, current approaches focus on filtering biohazardous data during pre-training. However, the effectiveness of such an approach remains unclear, particularly against determined actors who might fine-tune these models for malicious use. To address this gap, we propose BioRiskEval, a framework to evaluate the robustness of procedures that are intended to reduce the dual-use capabilities of bio-foundation models. BioRiskEval assesses models' virus understanding through three lenses, including sequence modeling, mutational effects prediction, and virulence prediction. Our results show that current filtering practices may not be particularly effective: Excluded knowledge can be rapidly recovered in some cases via fine-tuning, and exhibits broader generalizability in sequence modeling. Furthermore, dual-use signals may already reside in the pretrained representations, and can be elicited via simple linear probing. These findings highlight the challenges of data filtering as a standalone procedure, underscoring the need for further research into robust safety and security strategies for open-weight bio-foundation models.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Oct 2025.
Builds on
20 of 59 references.
References · 20
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023PaLM 2 Technical Reportcited by 1,162
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,154
- 2024The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearningcited by 509
- 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakerscited by 322
- 2023Pretraining Language Models with Human Preferencescited by 247
- 2024LAB-Bench: Measuring Capabilities of Language Models for Biology Researchcited by 156
- 2023DNABERT-2: Efficient Foundation Model and Benchmark For Multi-Species Genomecited by 143
- 2023SILO Language Models: Isolating Legal Risk In a Nonparametric Datastorecited by 71
- 2024On Evaluating the Durability of Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMscited by 52
- 2025Deep Ignorance: Filtering Pretraining Data Builds Tamper-Resistant Safeguards into Open-Weight LLMscited by 42
- 2025Virology Capabilities Test (VCT): A Multimodal Virology Q&A Benchmarkcited by 31
8 more
- 2025Estimating Worst-Case Frontier Risks of Open-Weight LLMscited by 19
- 2025Systems and Algorithms for Convolutional Multi-Hybrid Language Models at Scalecited by 12
- 2022GeneFormer: Learned Gene Compression using Transformer-based Context Modelingcited by 10
- 2024BioNeMo Framework: a modular, high-performance library for AI model development in drug discoverycited by 10
- 2025Dynamic Risk Assessments for Offensive Cybersecurity Agentscited by 8
- 2025GeneBreaker: Jailbreak Attacks against DNA Language Models with Pathogenicity Guidancecited by 8
- 2025Prompt Attacks Reveal Superficial Knowledge Removal in Unlearning Methodscited by 5
- 2025Resilient Biosecurity in the Era of AI-Enabled Bioweaponscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.