From Thinker to Society: Security in Hierarchical Autonomy Evolution of AI Agents
Organizations: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China · Collaborative Innovation Center of Novel Software Technology and Industrialization, China · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China · The University of Hong Kong, China ·
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents have evolved from passive predictive tools into active entities capable of autonomous decision-making and environmental interaction, driven by the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, this evolution has introduced critical security vulnerabilities that existing frameworks fail to address. The Hierarchical Autonomy Evolution (HAE) framework organizes agent security into three tiers: Cognitive Autonomy (L1) targets internal reasoning integrity; Execution Autonomy (L2) covers tool-mediated environmental interaction; Collective Autonomy (L3) addresses systemic risks in multi-agent ecosystems. We present a taxonomy of threats spanning cognitive manipulation, physical environment disruption, and multi-agent systemic failures, and evaluate existing defenses while identifying key research gaps. The findings aim to guide the development of multilayered, autonomy-aware defense architectures for trustworthy AI agent systems.
Figures & tables
| Perspective | Representative | Taxonomy | Limitations | HAE Advantages |
| Lifecycle | Wang et al. ( wang2025comprehensive ) | Data, Training, Deployment | Static model focus; overlooks runtime interaction risks. | Centers on real-time evolutionary risks in open-world interactions. |
| Trustworthy Attributes | Yu et al. ( yu2025survey ) | Safety, Privacy, Fairness, Robustness | Fragments causal chains; misses cross-attribute cascading. | Reveals capability-threat symbiosis and cross-layer propagation. |
| Component | Deng et al. ( deng2025ai ) | Brain, Memory, Tools, Perception | Treats components as isolated; lacks emergent perspective. | Integrates component interactions; reveals qualitative changes from combinations. |
| Autonomy Structural | Su et al. ( su2025survey ) | L1-L5 autonomy levels; internal architectural fragilities | Single-agent focused; insufficient on multi-agent societal risks. | Explicitly proposes L3 Collective Autonomy; extends to systemic governance. |
| HAE (Ours) | This work | L1 Cognition – L2 Execution – L3 Collective | — | Unifies micro-cognition and macro-society evolution; fills societal-level security gap. |
AI Agent Security
Artificial intelligence agent security studies attacks and safeguards for tool-using, persistent, and collaborative systems across digital and physical settings.
See all 508 papers