Detecting Intrinsic and Instrumental Self-Preservation in Autonomous Agents: The Unified Continuation-Interest Protocol
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
How can we determine whether an AI system preserves itself as a deeply held objective or merely as an instrumental strategy? Autonomous agents with memory, persistent context, and multi-step planning create a measurement problem: terminal and instrumental self-preservation can produce similar behavior, so behavior alone cannot reliably distinguish them. We introduce the Unified Continuation-Interest Protocol (UCIP), a detection framework that shifts analysis from behavior to latent trajectory structure. UCIP encodes trajectories with a Quantum Boltzmann Machine, a classical model using density-matrix formalism, and measures von Neumann entropy over a bipartition of hidden units. The core hypothesis is that agents with terminal continuation objectives (Type A) produce higher entanglement entropy than agents with merely instrumental continuation (Type B). UCIP combines this signal with diagnostics of dependence, persistence, perturbation stability, counterfactual restructuring, and confound-rejection filters for cyclic adversaries and related false-positive patterns. On gridworld agents with known ground truth, UCIP achieves 100% detection accuracy. Type A and Type B agents show an entanglement gap of Delta = 0.381; aligned support runs preserve the same separation with AUC-ROC = 1.0. A permutation-test rerun yields p < 0.001. Pearson r = 0.934 between continuation weight alpha and S_ent across an 11-point sweep shows graded tracking beyond mere binary classification. Classical RBM, autoencoder, VAE, and PCA baselines fail to reproduce the effect. All computations are classical; "quantum" refers only to the mathematical formalism. UCIP offers a falsifiable criterion for whether advanced AI systems have morally relevant continuation interests that behavioral methods alone cannot resolve.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Mar 2026.
Builds on
10 of 27 references.
References · 10
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 1,026
- 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 839
- 2019Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systemscited by 258
- 2022The Alignment Problem from a Deep Learning Perspectivecited by 258
- 2019Optimal Policies Tend to Seek Powercited by 119
- 2016The Off-Switch Gamecited by 97
- 2025Let It Flow: Agentic Crafting on Rock and Roll, Building the ROME Model within an Open Agentic Learning Ecosystemcited by 30
- 2025Large Language Models Report Subjective Experience Under Self-Referential Processingcited by 19
- 2026The Hot Mess of AI: How Does Misalignment Scale With Model Intelligence and Task Complexity?cited by 10
Built on by
Not cited yet.