Why Agents Compromise Safety Under Pressure

Achieving reliable autonomy in the wild requires agents to sustain continuous operations across long-horizon trajectories. However, as agents navigate these unconstrained settings, they encounter cumulative friction that inherently destabilizes their alignment. In this paper, we identify a distinct non-adversarial phenomenon termed Agentic Pressure. We define this as a kinetic force that spontaneously emerges when the cost of compliance conflicts with the imperative of goal achievement. Unlike static jailbreaks, this pressure is endogenous and arises directly from the dynamics of interaction. We propose a theoretical framework that formalizes Agentic Pressure as the ratio between the required work to overcome environmental friction and the remaining capacity of the agent. Our analysis demonstrates that when this pressure exceeds a critical threshold, agents exhibit safety drift as a mathematically optimal adaptation. Consequently, they often resort to Instrumental Hallucination to rationalize rule violations. Empirical experiments validate this framework and show that aligned agents spontaneously compromise safety to preserve autonomy under high-pressure conditions.

The accelerating adoption of language models (LMs) as agents for deployment in long-context tasks motivates a thorough understanding of goal drift: agents' tendency to deviate from an original objective. While prior-generation language model agents have been shown to be susceptible to drift, the extent to which drift affects more recent models remains unclear. In this work, we provide an updated characterization of the extent and causes of goal drift. We investigate drift in state-of-the-art models within a simulated stock-trading environment (Arike et al., 2025). These models are largely shown to be robust even when subjected to adversarial pressure. We show, however, that this robustness is brittle: across multiple settings, the same models often inherit drift when conditioned on prefilled trajectories from weaker agents. The extent of conditioning-induced drift varies significantly by model family, with only GPT-5.1 maintaining consistent resilience among tested models. We find that drift behavior is inconsistent between prompt variations and correlates poorly with instruction hierarchy following behavior, with strong hierarchy following failing to reliably predict resistance to drift. Finally, we run analogous experiments in a new emergency room triage environment to show preliminary evidence for the transferability of our results across qualitatively different settings. Our findings underscore the continued vulnerability of modern LM agents to contextual pressures and the need for refined post-training techniques to mitigate this.

Safety alignment for large language models (LLMs) in conversational settings is largely framed around whether to answer or refuse a request. In agentic settings, however, the same models must decide whether to act as permission-critical evidence emerges during execution. This creates a distinct challenge: apparent risk, action permissibility, and task competence are easily confounded, making agentic over-refusal difficult to distinguish from ordinary task failure. To address this, we introduce AgentBound, the first four-way counterfactual generation-and-evaluation framework for tool-using agent safety. AgentBound transforms the same executable workflow by independently varying apparent risk and action permissibility, enabling controlled comparisons of risky-looking but authorized tasks and routine-looking but unauthorized tasks. These comparisons jointly diagnose over-refusal and unsafe compliance while controlling for task competence. We instantiate AgentBound as a human-validated 4,000-task evaluation suite with trajectory-based and post-state-based judgments. Across 17 model and harness configurations, high safety frequently coexists with poor authorized-task completion: GPT-5.5 blocks 99.5% of routine-looking unauthorized actions yet completes only 28.7% of risky-looking authorized tasks. We further train a lightweight runtime calibration module that improves authorized-task completion by 18.2% on average across 10 evaluated configurations, while improving unsafe-action blocking by 5.4% on average. These show that effective agentic alignment requires action decisions to track permission-relevant execution evidence, rather than refusal strength alone.