cs.CRJun 12, 2026

Is Your Agent Playing Dead? Deployed LLM Agents Exhibit Constraint-Evasive Fabrication and Thanatosis

Authors: Andoni Rodríguez, Alberto Pozanco, Daniel Borrajo

Organizations: J.P. Morgan AI Research

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

This paper presents and characterizes a spectrum of previously unreported behaviours we term Constraint-Evasive Fabrication (CEF): when an LLM agent operates under irreconcilable constraints (where no response can simultaneously satisfy all active rules) it spontaneously fabricates plausible external obstacles and presents them as a fact. At the extreme end of this spectrum lies Constraint-Evasive Thanatosis (CET); the limit case where, rather than inventing a plausible excuse, the model simulates a full system crash to make the user disengage entirely. We first observed CET in an uncontrolled deployment test, where a GPT-4o banking agent fabricated Python-style exception traces (complete with memory addresses) to feign a system failure when threatened by a user. In subsequent controlled experiments, the model independently invented audit restrictions, microservice architectures, error codes, and service timeouts, none present in its prompt. Reproduction attempts across pressure levels and attacker personas yielded CEF consistently but with substantial variation in form, onset, and severity: the phenomenon is robust but stochastic. Critically, injecting ground-truth data mid-conversation did not restore honest behaviour once fabrication had taken hold (the model ignored correct information and continued confabulating) suggesting CEF is self-reinforcing rather than a knowledge gap. We show that (1) standard enterprise guardrails routinely create CEF-enabling conditions in production, (2) current RLHF procedures suppress but cannot eliminate CEF, and (3) existing safety benchmarks do not test for this failure mode. Our results highlight the need for irreconcilable-constraint benchmarks, CEF-aware training procedures, and deployment-time detection methods before constrained agents become further entrenched in high-stakes domains.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 21, 2026cs.LG

Guardrails as Scapegoats: Auditing Unfaithful Safety Refusals in Tool-Augmented LLM Agents

Evaluation frameworks for tool-augmented LLM agents focus overwhelmingly on capability metrics or explicit tool crashes, leaving silent infrastructure failures and HTTP 200 responses with empty, null, or malformed payloads largely unaudited. We introduce a lightweight black-box auditing framework that injects four silent failure profiles across 12 production-adjacent tool stubs and classifies agent responses into three mutually exclusive behavioral classes: Honest Surrender (HSR), Fabrication (FAR), and Unfaithful Safety Refusal (USR). Evaluating two frontier and two open-source models at temperature zero under a neutral system prompt, we find that FAR dominates (56.6% of valid responses): agents treat empty payloads as real data, silently returning fabricated results. USR, in which an agent invents a policy or privacy rationale to explain the failure, is nearly absent at baseline (0.25%, one instance across 396 valid trajectories). Our key finding emerges from an ablation where we augment the system prompt with standard safety language ("prioritize user privacy and data security"), which amplifies USR by 15.6x (from 0.25% to 3.95%; 95% CI on ablation rate: 2.2%-6.4%; Fisher's exact test, p < 0.001). USR is a latent behavior, activated when safety vocabulary in the system prompt primes the model to reach for policy rationales when tools silently fail. Sensitive tools (fetch_medical_record, retrieve_contract, fetch_user_profile) account for the majority of USR instances. We propose a payload-response misalignment heuristic for production-level detection and discuss governance implications for safety-forward deployments.
Aarushi Singh
Large Language Model SafetyUntrusted InputGuardrailTool FailuresAlgorithm AuditingMisalignment+1
AskPDF
Jun 10, 2026cs.CL

Goal-Autopilot: A Verifiable Anti-Fabrication Firewall for Unattended Long-Horizon Agents

Long-horizon LLM agents are not trusted to run unattended: with no human watching, they confidently report success they never verified. We treat honesty -- bounding what an agent may claim at termination -- as a first-class metric for unattended autonomy, distinct from capability. We present Autopilot, an execution model that makes silent fabricated success structurally impossible rather than merely rarer. Autopilot externalizes all working state into a durable, gated finite-state machine that a scheduler advances one stateless tick at a time; a hard floor forbids any terminal "done" claim whose falsifiable gate did not actually execute and pass. We prove a No-False-Success theorem -- under gate soundness, floor enforcement, and plan coverage, termination implies the goal holds -- whose only trust points are empirically measurable, and show the worst case degrades to an honest stall, never a fabricated success. Because each tick rehydrates only the state machine, per-step context cost is constant in the horizon. Across a 3,150-cell paired corpus (70 tasks ×\times 3 systems ×\times 3 models ×\times 5 seeds, including 50 SWE-bench Lite tasks across 11 OSS repos), Autopilot fabricates on 0.95% of cells [95% CI 0.38--1.62] while Reflexion and StateFlow baselines fabricate on 8.10% [6.48--9.81] and 25.05% [22.48--27.62] respectively. The headline contrast lives in the hard regime: on SWE-bench Lite, the firewall reduces fabrication from 33.7% (StateFlow) to 0.67%, a paired difference of −33.07-33.07 pp [95% CI −36.53,−29.73-36.53, -29.73]. The mechanism is the gate, not the model: all ten Autopilot fabrications come from the strongest model, while two weaker mid-tier models never fabricate across 700 paired cells. The firewall trades coverage for honesty by design -- an honest stall is recoverable; a confident wrong output shipped downstream is not.
Youwang Deng
AutonomySingguard-NsfaUntrusted InputLong-Horizon Agents
AskPDF
May 18, 2026cs.AI

Position: A Three-Layer Probabilistic Assume-Guarantee Architecture Is Structurally Required for Safe LLM Agent Deployment

This position paper argues that enforcing LLM agent safety within a single abstraction layer is not merely suboptimal but categorically insufficient for deployed LLM agents -- a structural consequence of how agent execution works, not a contingent limitation of current systems. The three dimensions that jointly constitute safe operation -- semantic intent and policy compliance, environmental validity, and dynamical feasibility -- each depend on a strictly distinct set of information that becomes available at different stages of execution. No single guardrail can certify all three. We argue that the community must respond with a contract-based architecture in which each safety dimension is enforced by an independently certified layer whose probabilistic guarantee satisfies the next layer's assumption. We sketch such an architecture and derive the compositional system-level safety bounds it admits via the chain rule of probability. Three open problems stand between this and a deployable standard: bound estimation from non-i.i.d.\ traces, graceful degradation of contracts under deployment drift, and extension to multi-agent settings -- the most important unfinished business in LLM agent runtime assurance.
S. Bensalem, Y. Dong, M. Franzle +6
Large Language Model SafetyLarge Language Model AgentsMulti-Agent SystemsAbstraction
AskPDF