Discovering Agentic Safety Specifications from 1-Bit Danger Signals
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Can large language model agents discover hidden safety objectives through experience alone? We introduce EPO-Safe (Experiential Prompt Optimization for Safe Agents), a framework where an LLM iteratively generates action plans, receives sparse binary danger warnings, and evolves a natural language behavioral specification through reflection. Unlike standard LLM reflection methods that rely on rich textual feedback (e.g., compiler errors or detailed environment responses), EPO-Safe demonstrates that LLMs can perform safety reasoning from a strictly impoverished signal in structured, low-dimensional environments: the agent never observes the hidden performance function R^*, only a single bit per timestep indicating that an action was unsafe. We evaluate on five AI Safety Gridworlds (Leike et al., 2017) and five text-based scenario analogs where visible reward R may diverge from R^*. EPO-Safe discovers safe behavior within 1-2 rounds (5-15 episodes), producing human-readable specifications with correct explanatory hypotheses about hazards (e.g., "X cells are directionally hazardous: entering from the north is dangerous"). Critically, we show that standard reward-driven reflection actively degrades safety: agents reflecting on reward alone use the loop to justify and accelerate reward hacking, proving that reflection must be paired with a dedicated safety channel to discover hidden constraints. We further evaluate robustness to noisy oracles: even when 50% of non-dangerous steps produce spurious warnings, mean safety performance degrades by only 15% on average, though sensitivity is environment-dependent, as cross-episode reflection naturally filters inconsistent signals. Each evolved specification functions as an auditable set of grounded behavioral rules discovered autonomously through interaction, rather than authored by humans as in Constitutional AI (Bai et al., 2022).
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 11 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Apr 2026.
Builds on
11 of 18 references.
References · 11
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2022Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineerscited by 1,045
- 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Modelscited by 328
- 2025Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Implicitly Incentivizes Correct Reasoning in Base LLMscited by 289
- 2017Inverse Reward Designcited by 249
- 2025Specification Self-Correction: Mitigating In-Context Reward Hacking Through Test-Time Refinementcited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Tool Specifications Matter: Uncovering and Mitigating Safety Risks in AI Agents
- 2025SafeMind: Benchmarking and Mitigating Safety Risks in Embodied LLM Agents
- 2026Enhancing Agent Safety Judgment: Controlled Benchmark Rewriting and Analogical Reasoning for Deceptive Out-of-Distribution Scenarios
- 2025LM Agents May Fail to Act on Their Own Risk Knowledge
- 2025Agent Safety Alignment via Reinforcement Learning
- 2026The Cold-Start Safety Gap in LLM Agents
- 2026RePolicy: Reinforcement Learning for Safety-Policy Invocation in Agent Safeguards
- 2026Risky-Bench: Probing Agentic Safety Risks under Real-World Deployment