PreprintCited by 0Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningEthics and Social Impacts of AISafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy

SEABench: Benchmarking Endogenous Misalignment In Self-Evolving Agents

Open access
Das, Saswat, Viswanathan, Parvati, Donnelly, Daniel, Huang, Chang, Abdelnabi, Sahar, Fioretto, Ferdinando·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Self-evolving LLM agents have gained prominence for their ability to improve after deployment by modifying their harness, including their controller instructions, memory management protocols, and reusable tools and skills, in response to user and environment feedback. However, locally useful updates may persist into later tasks where they produce unsafe behavior, even without direct adversarial influence. To study this risk, we introduce SEABench, a benchmark for studying endogenous misalignment arising from agent self-evolution, with 48 longitudinal task sequences that span multiple evolution surfaces, task domains, and harm types in a rich personal-assistant environment. To account for the stochasticity inherent in agentic operations, we provide an adaptive trajectory discovery pipeline that probes for failures while preserving original task intent and supports causal attribution through paired non-evolving agents and attribution scores. Our evaluation across multiple recent LLMs, evolution surfaces, and harm types reveals that self-evolution indeed increases task completion rates but often at the cost of safety failures that are absent for paired non-evolving baseline agents. We also show that qualitatively different safety behaviors emerge across evolution surfaces and harm types. Further, we show that this divergence in safety behavior is reflected in agents' chain-of-thought reasoning, which yields an effective monitoring strategy that can mitigate unsafe behavior with a low false positive rate.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2609.35596

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Das, S., Viswanathan, P., Donnelly, D., Huang, C., Abdelnabi, S., & Fioretto, F.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7214778362
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2334936, 2533631)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Keywords
safety failures, personal assistant agents, chain-of-thought reasoning, causal attribution, task completion

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