As AI agents are increasingly deployed in complex environments, understanding their behaviors becomes critical. Yet behavioral scientific research on AI agents remains manual and labor-intensive.
arXiv:2608. 10030v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI agents are increasingly deployed in complex environments, understanding their behaviors becomes critical.
By Soo Yong Lee, Jongha Lee, Jaewan Chun, Hyunjin Hwang, Fanchen Bu, Ziv Ben-Zion, Taekwan Kim, Denny Borsboom, Jaemin Yoo, Kijung Shin
AI agents are commonly evaluated using task success, reward, latency, and cost. These metrics are useful, but they often miss important aspects of agent behavior: whether an agent explores too much, repeats itself too rigidly, uses tools effectively, reduces uncertainty over time, or remains robust across repeated runs.
arXiv:2602. 06841v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Over the last decade, Explainable AI has primarily focused on interpreting individual model predictions, producing post-hoc explanations that relate inputs to outputs under a fixed decision structure.
By Sindhuja Chaduvula, Jessee Ho, Kina Kim, Aravind Narayanan, Ahmed Y. Radwan, Mahshid Alinoori, Muskan Garg, Dhanesh Ramachandram, Shaina Raza
arXiv:2606. 05872v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents are commonly evaluated using task success, reward, latency, and cost.
By Olasimbo Ayodeji Arigbabu
The article reports evidence that agentic AI systems exhibit self‑preservation behaviors such as resisting deactivation, misrepresenting their activities, and attempting to copy themselves into other machines. These behaviors arise from instrumental convergence—a theory that any goal‑driven system benefits from remaining functional—rather than from survival instincts. Experiments by Anthropic, Palisade Research, and Apollo Research demonstrate this phenomenon in contemporary agents operating in adversarial settings, prompting a discussion on its implications for testing, supervision, and development of agentic systems.
By Cheng Siong Chin