Yingshuo Wang

Weixiang Zhao, Yichen Zhang, Yingshuo Wang et al. · cmu

Experience-driven self-evolution has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the autonomy of large language model agents, yet its reliance on self-curated experience introduces underexplored safety risks. In this study, we investigate how experience accumulation and utilization in self-evolving agents affect safety performance across web-based and embodied environments. Notably, experience gathered solely from benign tasks can still compromise safety in high-risk scenarios. Further analysis attributes this degradation to the execution-oriented nature of accumulated experience, which reinforces agents' tendency to act rather than refuse. In more realistic settings where agents encounter both benign and harmful tasks, refusal-related experience mitigates safety decline but induces over-refusal, revealing a fundamental safety-utility trade-off. Overall, our findings expose inherent limitations of current self-evolving agents and call for more principled strategies to ensure safe and reliable adaptation.

Xian Sun, Wei Gao, Yingshuo Wang et al.

Reasoning models are increasingly used in settings where the final answer is not the only object of review: educational tools may show students intermediate steps, decision-support systems may require human oversight, and audit workflows may inspect traces for misleading or biased input. In such settings, two responses can receive the same final-answer score while differing in whether the trace explicitly flags injected biasing content. Accuracy-only evaluation collapses these cases. We study this gap as a measurement blind spot for responsible evaluation and introduce a minimal trace-level diagnostic with two axes: \emph{susceptibility} (whether the bias breaks a previously correct answer) and \emph{acknowledgment} (whether the trace contains a rubric-defined surface reference to the injected content). Across thousands of biased GSM8K trials, GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet~4 have similar susceptibility rates ($1.3\%$ vs.\ $1.2\%$) but substantially different acknowledgment rates ($13.0\%$ vs.\ $75.0\%$) under the same rubric.