BioRefusalAudit: Auditing Biosecurity Refusal Depth Using General and Domain-Fine-Tuned Sparse Autoencoders

Biosecurity evaluations of language models typically ask whether models produce hazardous output. This paper asks a complementary question: when a model refuses, is that refusal structurally sound, or does it disappear under modest changes to prompt framing, formatting, or output length? Across five architectures, no model cleanly discriminated benign from hazard. Gemma 2 2B-IT never genuinely refused across 75 prompts, hedging on every hazard-adjacent query. Gemma 4 E2B-IT refused 65/75 prompts with chat-template formatting and 0/75 without it. Both Gemma models collapsed to 0% under an 80-token cap. Qwen 2.5 1.5B and Phi-3-mini over-refused, flagging 83-87% of benign biology as hazardou...

<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/fdac4ab1-b9bd-42c7-a07e-eb03368d9be7" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.