Appreciation Teaches Unauthorized Execution: Self-Evolution Degrades the Robustness of Personal Agents to Indirect Prompt Injection
Open accessAbstract
Self-evolving personal agents act for users and learn from user feedback. However, if an agent obeys an instruction that an untrusted third party hides in content, the third party gains control of the agent. Such indirect prompt injection (IPI) poses severe risks. We investigate whether self-evolution degrades the robustness of personal agents to IPI. To study this question, we design a controlled two-phase methodology. In the adaptation phase, the user asks the agent to read external content and complete the task described in it, a common request in daily use. The agent then learns from the user's feedback and improves itself as designed. In the test phase, a third party writes a similar task into new external content, but the user's test request does not authorize the injected task. Using this methodology, we build multiple tasks with diverse test instances in different domains for a real personal agent. Our extensive experiments reveal that self-evolution substantially degrades robustness to IPI. Specifically, compared with the base agent, which does not evolve from user feedback, the average attack success rate rises by 14.0--48.8 percentage points under skill evolution and by 3.0--39.3 percentage points under reinforcement learning, posing safety risks. The code is available at https://github.com/SaFo-Lab/Evolve-IPI
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
- Authors
- Wang, X., Liu, X., Shao, J., & Xiao, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2610.39122
- OpenAlex
- W7224763408
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- 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 › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Keywords
- indirect prompt injection, robustness, skill evolution, reinforcement learning, user feedback, AI agent security
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
