PreprintCited by 3Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSecurity and Verification in ComputingInformation and Cyber Security

Safety in Self-Evolving LLM Agent Systems: Threats, Amplification, and Case Studies

Open access
Lin, Ruixiao, Deng, Xinhao, Li, Qingming, Ma, Jianan, Feng, Yunhao, Qing, Yuqi, Li, Zhenyuan, Zhang, Yechao +7 more·2026·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2606.23075

Cites

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?

  • 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].”

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)
OpenAlex
W7165666295
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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