arXiv:2607. 16247v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have empowered embodied agents to execute complex household tasks, they struggle to proactively handle dynamically emerging hazards during closed-loop interactions.
arXiv:2608. 05695v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language model (LLM) agents increasingly invoke external tools and interact with real-world systems, unsafe actions may cause irreversible consequences on external states, user data, and downstream services.
arXiv:2606. 05805v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based guardrails typically safeguard agents by evaluating proposed actions or inputs before execution, producing safety signals such as binary allow/deny decisions, risk categories, and/or explanatory rationales about potential policy violations.
The paper demonstrates that safety mechanisms for autonomous large language model agents fail to compose across iterative loops, as trajectory‑scoped monitors cannot detect attacks whose evidence is spread over multiple iterations. It introduces LoopHarness, a system that maintains a persistent, non‑decaying safety state across loops, bounding unauthorized actions with a constant that does not grow with the number of iterations. The authors provide a comprehensive evaluation protocol, including attacks that require cross‑iteration evidence, module ablations, and adaptive white‑box red‑team testing.
arXiv:2608. 04289v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-horizon agents increasingly use persistent memory and tools to take actions with external side effects.
arXiv:2608. 12851v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-improving LLM agents convert successful trajectories into persistent cross-task state.
arXiv:2608. 19729v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language-model-based embodied agents can complete instructed tasks but often violate safety constraints in the process, a problem recently framed as interactive safety.
arXiv:2608. 09885v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The safety of large language model (LLM) agents depends not only on model weights but also on the agent harness that manages context, memory, tools, permissions, and runtime control.
Vision-language-model-based embodied agents can complete instructed tasks but often violate safety constraints in the process, a problem recently framed as interactive safety. Training such agents to act safely is difficult, since safety and task success are distinct objectives, and safety arises only at a small number of safety-critical steps within a trajectory.
SafeCoEvo is a test‑time framework that co‑evolves safety harnesses and guards for large language model agents. It uses a short‑term S‑Harness to quickly externalize recent runtime experience into explicit safety knowledge, and a long‑term GuardVPO to internalize accumulated experience into parametric risk‑judgment capabilities. This dual adaptation improves safety and task success, reducing unsafe outcomes by 10.05% and increasing task success by 12.15% over the strongest baseline.
arXiv:2608. 02683v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) agents rely on multi-stage agentic workflows, with stages such as memory, planning, and tool execution, to accomplish complex tasks.
SafeEvolve is an experience-driven framework that co‑evolves a harness and policy to align large‑language‑model agents with safety goals. It uses completed on‑policy trajectories to update safety prompts and hierarchical skills, then applies a two‑stage SFT‑RL training loop that bootstraps the policy with the evolved harness and refines it through verifier‑augmented rewards. Experiments on agentic safety benchmarks show that SafeEvolve improves the safety‑utility tradeoff, achieving a three‑fold reduction in ASR on AgentDojo for Qwen3.5‑4B while increasing benign utility from 59.79% to 61.86%.
SafeEvolve is an experience-driven framework that co‑evolves a harness and policy to improve safety alignment for LLM‑based agents. It uses on‑policy trajectory safety evidence to update safety prompts and hierarchical skills, producing auditable harness artifacts. The policy is trained via a two‑stage SFT‑RL pipeline that bootstraps with the evolved harness and then refines behavior through verifier‑decomposed rewards, yielding a better safety‑utility tradeoff on benchmarks such as AgentDojo.