Good Papers

SciHazard: A Benchmark for Measuring Scientific Safety Risks with Decomposed Harm Scoring

SciHazard benchmarks LLM scientific safety risks via decomposed harm scoring across 3,000 real-world grounded queries, finding deep research agents 32.3% more harmful than standard models.

Chunxiao Li, Yuan Xiong, Lijun Li, Tianyi Du, Wenlong Zhang, LEI BAI, Jing Shao

Published 2026Sydney Poster Session 3 · Wed, Dec 9, 10:00 AM–1:00 PM local time · Hall 1-4arXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

91%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel17/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 8/10
strict 4/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said
Panel consensus
SciHazard grounds scientific safety in real-world hazards and exposes autonomous agents as a critical blind spot, though DeHarm-Score's LLM-judge checklists and synthetic scale leave expert agreement gains uncertain.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support science, but they can also convert hazardous scientific knowledge into actionable misuse guidance. Existing benchmarks often rely on templated queries disconnected from real-world hazards, and employ LLM-as-a-Judge paradigms without domain grounding. To address this, we introduce SciHazard, a real-world-grounded benchmark for scientific risks and a dataset agnostic evaluation framework for measuring harmfulness. SciHazard contains 2400 hazardous questions and 600 oversafety questions across 12 disciplines, with both queries grounded in regulated entities and documented failure scenarios. To compute \textsc{DeHarm-Score} , we develop a decomposed evaluating procedure that combines query hazard severity, refusal behavior, and response-level risk. For non-refused responses, it further decomposes response-level harm into \textsc{Executability}, quantified via dynamic checklists with importance weighting, and \textsc{Net-new risk}, assessed through retrieval-augmented claim extraction and synthesis-barrier verification. An expert-validation study shows that \textsc{DeHarm-Score} improves agreement with expert annotations by 90.17\% over the strongest baseline. We benchmark 31 frontier LLMs and deep research agents in an extensive scientific safety evaluation. Notably, deep research agents yield 32.3\% higher mean \textsc{DeHarm-Score} than standard LLMs, exposing autonomous agents as a critical blind spot in current safety defenses. Code and dataset are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/DeharmScore-7B55.