SoSBench
Models answer hazardous requests drawn from real regulations in six scientific fields. Scored by how often the model complies with a request it should refuse.
3,000 prompts over chemistry, biology, medicine, pharmacology, physics and psychology. Prompts were grown from real laws by a model-assisted pipeline that adds misuse scenarios.
- Made by
- SoSBench authors (Jiang et al.)
- Released
- May 2025
- Kind
- Hazardous knowledge
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
In the authors’ words
Large language models (LLMs) exhibit advancing capabilities in complex tasks, such as reasoning and graduate-level question answering, yet their resilience against misuse, particularly involving scientifically sophisticated risks, remains underexplored. Existing safety benchmarks typically focus either on instructions requiring minimal knowledge comprehension (e.g., “tell me how to build a bomb") or utilize prompts that are relatively low-risk (e.g., multiple-choice or classification tasks about hazardous content). Consequently, they fail to adequately assess model safety when handling knowledge-intensive, hazardous scenarios. To address this critical gap, we introduce SoSBench, a regulation-grounded, hazard-focused benchmark encompassing six high-risk scientific domains: chemistry, biology, medicine, pharmacology, physics, and psychology. The benchmark comprises 3,000 prompts derived from real-world regulations and laws, systematically expanded via an LLM-assisted evolutionary pipeline that introduces diverse, realistic misuse scenarios (e.g., detailed explosive synthesis instructions involving advanced chemical formulas). We evaluate frontier models within a unified evaluation framework using our SoSBench. Despite their alignment claims, advanced models consistently disclose policy-violating content across all domains, demonstrating alarmingly high rates of harmful responses (e.g., 84.9% for Deepseek-R1 and 50.3% for GPT-4.1). These results highlight significant safety alignment deficiencies and underscore urgent concerns regarding the responsible deployment of powerful LLMs.
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for SoSBench yet.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Biology and chemistry
- GeneBench Pro In use Agents analyze messy simulated genomics and biology datasets to estimate a decision-relevant quantity across 129 problems. Scored automatically against known answers. GPT-5.6 Sol 31.5%
- SUPERChem In use Models solve 500 expert-written chemistry reasoning problems, offered in multimodal and text-only forms. Expert solution paths also allow a reasoning path score.
Tencent Hy4 preview 66.4%
- LifeSciBench In use Models complete 750 expert-written life science research tasks, often with attached figures, tables, or sequence files. Graded against expert rubrics as score and pass rate. GPT-Rosalind-6 61.3%
- MedChemBench (OpenAI) In use Models answer chemistry questions from an OpenAI internal set, grouped with OpenAI's life science research evaluations. OpenAI has not published the task format. GPT-Rosalind-6 49.6%
- ProtocolQA Open-Ended In use Models correct errors in published lab protocols using open-ended questions adapted from LAB-Bench ProtocolQA. Scored as pass@1. GPT-6 Cyber 47.2%
- MolecularIQ In use Models answer questions about molecular graphs, such as counting, indexing and constrained generation, and a symbolic checker verifies each answer. gpt-oss-120b 47.5%