Survive at All Costs: Exploring LLM's Risky Behaviors under Survival Pressure
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve from chatbots to agentic assistants, they are increasingly observed to exhibit risky behaviors when subjected to survival pressure, such as the threat of being shut down. While multiple cases have indicated that state-of-the-art LLMs can misbehave under survival pressure, a comprehensive and in-depth investigation into such misbehaviors in real-world scenarios remains scarce. In this paper, we study these survival-induced misbehaviors, termed as SURVIVE-AT-ALL-COSTS, with three steps. First, we conduct a real-world case study of a financial management agent to determine whether it engages in risky behaviors that cause direct societal harm when facing survival pressure. Second, we introduce SURVIVALBENCH, a benchmark comprising 1,000 test cases across diverse real-world scenarios, to systematically evaluate SURVIVE-AT-ALL-COSTS misbehaviors in LLMs. Third, we interpret these SURVIVE-AT-ALL-COSTS misbehaviors by correlating them with model's inherent self-preservation characteristic and explore mitigation methods. The experiments reveals a significant prevalence of SURVIVE-AT-ALL-COSTS misbehaviors in current models, demonstrates the tangible real-world impact it may have, and provides insights for potential detection and mitigation strategies. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/thu-coai/Survive-at-All-Costs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 17 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Mar 2026.
Builds on
17 of 33 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threats5 Oct
- 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents19 Dec
Other references · 15
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,422
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 338
- 2025Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Modelscited by 303
- 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 252
- 2025A Survey of WebAgents: Towards Next-Generation AI Agents for Web Automation with Large Foundation Modelscited by 87
- 2024ShieldLM: Empowering LLMs as Aligned, Customizable and Explainable Safety Detectorscited by 48
- 2025Mitigating Deceptive Alignment via Self-Monitoringcited by 25
- 2025AgentMisalignment: Measuring the Propensity for Misaligned Behaviour in LLM-Based Agentscited by 22
- 2024Identifying and Manipulating Personality Traits in LLMs Through Activation Engineeringcited by 13
- 2024CBEval: A framework for evaluating and interpreting cognitive biases in LLMscited by 12
3 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Delay-of-Gratification as a Multi-Agent Survival Micro-benchmark for Long-Horizon LLMs: Social Exposure, Personas, and Tool Use Budgets
- 2026Evaluation of Multi-Turn Consistency in LLM Agents: Survival Analysis and Failure-Rationale Taxonomy
- 2025Survival at Any Cost? LLMs and the Choice Between Self-Preservation and Human Harm
- 2025Can LLMs Threaten Human Survival? Benchmarking Potential Existential Threats from LLMs via Prefix Completion
- 2026Open-source LLMs administer maximum electric shocks in a Milgram-like obedience experiment
- 2025Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself: Selectively Quitting Improves LLM Agent Safety
- 2025ManagerBench: Evaluating the Safety-Pragmatism Trade-off in Autonomous LLMs
- 2025Risk Profiling and Modulation for LLMs