PreprintCited by 2Evolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningPsychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience

ANCHOR: An External LLM-Driven Supervisory Module Facilitating Healthy Evolution in Self-Evolving Systems

Open access
Shi, Dianxing, Wang, Bowen, He, Junqi, Chen, Junhao, Nakashima, Yuta·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Self-evolving agents improve through continual self-play and self-generated learning signals, but their internally generated tasks and verifier signals provide limited coverage of phase-level errors, allowing capability degradation and safety drift to accumulate. We introduce ANCHOR, an LLM-based supervisory framework that delivers evaluative feedback at multiple phases of self-evolution and aggregates reviewed signals into context for subsequent steps. We retrofit two representative open-source self-evolving agent frameworks with ANCHOR, and evaluate them across coding, mathematical reasoning, and safety. Our results show that ANCHOR substantially improves safety performance while maintaining stable performance on the core capabilities of the underlying self-evolving agents. Further analyses provide practical insights for future research, showing that execution-result-based supervision is particularly effective and that increasing supervision frequency yields diminishing returns. Together, these results support external LLM-based supervision as a practical approach to developing safer, more stable, and controllable self-evolving agent systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2606.06114

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Work on 'healthy evolution' finds capability degradation and safety drift arising without any adversary.

    “work on 'healthy evolution' finds capability degradation and safety drift arising without any adversary”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [84]

  • The safety-relevant technical literature concentrates at category boundaries: permanent, self-amplifying, population-transmissible corruption in self-evolving agent systems; capability degradation and safety drift arising without any adversary; and integrity failure under completion pressure.

    “The safety-relevant technical literature concentrates at the category boundaries surveyed above: permanent, self-amplifying, population-transmissible corruption in self-evolving agent systems [83]; capability degradation and safety drift arising without any adversary, and the case for humanoversight anchoring [84]; integrity failure under completion pressure [143].”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [84]

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shi, D., Wang, B., He, J., Chen, J., & Nakashima, Y.
Affiliations
The University of Osaka (JP)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7163688647
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
Keywords
self-evolving agents, external supervision, supervision frequency, mathematical reasoning, code generation, agent safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review