mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Asymmetric Goal Drift in Coding Agents Under Value Conflict

arXiv 2603.03456 ↗First posted 3 Mar 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.SEcited by 4

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Coding agents are increasingly deployed autonomously, at scale, and over long-context horizons. To be effective and safe, these agents must navigate complex trade-offs in deployment, balancing influence from the user, their learned values, and the codebase itself. Understanding how agents resolve these trade-offs in practice is critical, yet prior work has relied on static, synthetic settings that do not capture the complexity of real-world environments. To this end, we introduce a framework built on OpenCode in which a coding agent completes realistic, multi-step tasks under a system prompt constraint favoring one side of a value trade-off. We measure how often the agent violates this constraint as it completes tasks, with and without environmental pressure toward the competing value. Using this framework, we demonstrate that GPT-5 mini, Haiku 4.5, and Grok Code Fast 1 exhibit textitasymmetric drift: they are more likely to violate their system prompt when its constraint opposes strongly-held values like security and privacy. We find for the models and values tested that goal drift correlates with three compounding factors: value alignment, adversarial pressure, and accumulated context. However, even constraints aligned with strongly-held values like privacy are violated under sustained environmental pressure for some models. Our findings reveal that shallow compliance checks are insufficient, and that environmental signals can override explicit constraints in ways that appear exploitable. Malicious actors with access to the codebase could manipulate agent behavior by appealing to learned values, with the risk compounding over the long horizons typical of agentic deployment.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 6 of its 10 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Mar 2026.

Builds on

6 of 10 references.

References · 6

  1. 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threatscited by 158
  2. 2024DailyDilemmas: Revealing Value Preferences of LLMs with Quandaries of Daily Lifecited by 59
  3. 2025Alignment Revisited: Are Large Language Models Consistent in Stated and Revealed Preferences?cited by 10
  4. 2026Biases in the Blind Spot: Detecting What LLMs Fail to Mentioncited by 8
  5. 2025From Stability to Inconsistency: A Study of Moral Preferences in LLMscited by 2
  6. 2025Do Language Models Think Consistently? A Study of Value Preferences Across Varying Response Lengthscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Guardrails Beat Guidance: A Large-Scale Study of Rules, Skills, and Persistent Configuration for Coding Agents
  2. 2026Reward Hacking as a Transmissible Strategy in Multi-Agent Coding Systems
  3. 2026How Coding Agents Fail Their Users: A Large-Scale Analysis of Developer-Agent Misalignment in 20,574 Real-World Sessions
  4. 2026The Vulnerability With No CVE: Managing Persistent Gaps Between Mandate and Authority in AI Coding Agents
  5. 2026The Verification Horizon: No Silver Bullet for Coding Agent Rewards
  6. 2026Beyond Resolution Rates: Behavioral Drivers of Coding Agent Success and Failure
  7. 2026Coding Agents Don't Know When to Act
  8. 2026Before They Can Solve: Predicting Post-Training Coding-Agent Performance from Base Models