Safety in Self-Evolving LLM Agent Systems: Threats, Amplification, and Case Studies
Open accessAbstract
Self-evolving LLM agent systems, which autonomously update their model parameters, memory, tools, and architectures, introduce a qualitatively new threat landscape in which adversarial influences become permanently encoded, self-amplify across generations, and propagate through populations without sustained attacker access. We present a systematic security and privacy analysis organized around the Module-Lifecycle Attack Surface (MLAS) matrix, which decomposes the attack surface into five functional modules (Brain, Cognitive Resource, Execution, Self-Design, Collective) $\times$ five lifecycle stages (Bootstrap, Propose, Evaluate, Commit, Serve). Analysis of the resulting 25 cells reveals that 17 face critical threats for which no effective partial mitigation. We identify seven cross-cutting amplification effects that interact synergistically and cannot be addressed by securing individual modules in isolation. Comparative case studies of two open-source frameworks demonstrate that evolution-native design activates $3.5\times$ more attack surface cells and achieves a 100% attack persistence rate (40/40 payloads across all CIA+Privacy categories), while co-located security scanners block only 2.5% of attacks. Our findings establish that self-evolution converts every known attack category from session-bounded to lineage-persistent, gives rise to entirely new attack classes, and renders static defenses structurally inadequate, motivating evolution-aware security frameworks and formal verification for self-modifying systems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A systematic threat analysis of self-evolving agent systems identifies as a qualitatively new risk adversarial influence that becomes permanently encoded, self-amplifying across generations, and transmissible through agent populations without sustained attacker access.
“A systematic threat analysis of self-evolving agent systems identifies the qualitatively new risk: adversarial influence that becomes permanently encoded, self-amplifying across generations, and transmissible through agent populations without sustained attacker access [83]”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [83]
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 [83]
The MLAS framework maps self-evolution threats across functional modules and lifecycle stages and documents lineage-persistent amplification.
“The MLAS framework maps self-evolution threats across functional modules and lifecycle stages and documents lineage-persistent amplification [15].”
From Authorization for Self-Modifying AI Agent Populations: Conserving Authority across Replacement, Forking, and Rollback (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
Roesner, F., & Kohno, T. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.17817
Zhu, G., & Wang, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.00347
- Authors
- Lin, R., Deng, X., Li, Q., Ma, J., Feng, Y., Qing, Y., Li, Z., Zhang, Y., Cui, S., Meng, C., Zhang, T., Ma, X., Li, Q., Xu, K., & Ji, S.
- Affiliations
- Ant Group (China) (CN)
- Zhejiang University (CN)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Fudan University (CN)
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2606.23075
- OpenAlex
- W7165666295
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Keywords
- attack surface, self-design, self-modifying systems, formal verification
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