SciRisk-Bench: A Risk-Dimension-Aware Benchmark for AI4Science Safety

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to scientific research, yet existing evaluations often fail to reflect the fine-grained capabilities required in practice. Most benchmarks are manually curated or domain-generic, limiting scalability and alignment with real scientific use cases. In this paper, we propose a new framework named SciCustom to address the problem. It enables the custom construction of benchmarks from large-scale scientific data to evaluate application-specific scientific capabilities in LLMs. SciCustom first organizes scientific knowledge into ontology-grounded knowledge units with controlled granularity and trains a tagger to map large-scale data instances into this knowledge space. Given a custom requirement, relevant knowledge units are identified via voting-based multi-model consensus. These units enable relevance-aware benchmark retrieval via binary search, followed by proxy subset selection and data-grounded benchmark generation for efficient evaluation. Experiments in chemistry and healthcare demonstrate that SciCustom reveals fine-grained differences in LLM scientific capabilities that standard benchmarks overlook, while requiring neither expert annotation nor synthetic question generation. This work provides a scalable and application-aware foundation for benchmarking scientific capabilities in LLMs. The source code is available at https://github.com/yjwtheonly/SciCustom.

Existing benchmarks for scientific data analysis evaluate LLMs primarily on code execution or workflow completion, overlooking that scientific analysis serves to support distinct types of scientific claims: hypothesis exploration, statistical inference, mechanistic explanation, each with different assumptions and validity criteria. We introduce SDABench, a benchmark that reorganizes evaluation around six capabilities (descriptive, exploratory, inferential, predictive, causal, and mechanistic) across five domains (Biology, Chemistry, Environment, Geography, Physics). SDABench comprises 527 real-data instances (SDA-Real) and 6000 synthetic instances (SDA-Synth), each in both multiple-choice and open-ended formats, constructed through an automated pipeline. Evaluating 15 representative LLMs, we find that models handle descriptive analysis well but degrade sharply on tasks requiring assumption selection, latent-process modeling, or mechanistic reasoning. SDABench further provides a five-stage error analysis framework that locates where LLMs fail: more advanced models more reliably identify the relevant scope and variables, but still struggle to select appropriate analytical procedures, model variable relationships, and draw valid conclusions.