Self-Evolving AI for Humanoids: Mechanisms, Safety, and Evaluation of Post-Deployment Self-Improvement

Self-evolving agents improve through continual self-play and self-generated learning signals, but autonomous evolution can also cause capability degradation and safety drift. Although human feedback has proven effective for static and post-trained agents, its role in self-evolving systems remains underexplored. We introduce Agent Norm Correction through Human-like Oversight and Review (ANCHOR), an LLM-based framework that simulates human supervision and delivers feedback at various phases of self-evolution. With ANCHOR, we evaluate two representative open-source self-evolving agent systems across coding, mathematical reasoning, and safety. Our results show that even limited supervision substantially mitigates safety degradation while preserving stable performance on core evolutionary objectives. Further analysis shows that supervision over the output verification phase is the most effective for intervention, whereas increasing supervision frequency yields diminishing returns. These findings provide empirical evidence and practical guidance for designing more stable, controllable, and human-aligned self-evolving agent systems.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong general capabilities, yet their parameters typically remain fixed after deployment, limiting learning from new interactions. In open-ended environments, this motivates self-evolving agents that continually update reusable state-including model parameters, memories, tool definitions, skills, and workflows-from data, feedback, and accumulated experience. This shift changes the safety problem: once experience becomes reusable state, past events become future causes, and information harmless in one context may later influence decisions with greater persistence, authority, or scope. Self-evolving agent safety therefore asks not only whether a response is aligned or an action authorized, but whether safety properties survive the accumulation, generalization, and cross-context reuse of locally useful experience. We introduce SAVER, a transition-centered framework in which Substrate locates reusable influence, Adaptation captures how it changes, Violation identifies compromised safety attributes, Exposure marks where failures become observable, and Response assesses containment, repair, or revocation. Our survey reveals that failures need not originate from harmful information: legitimate state can become unsafe when adaptation expands its persistence, authority, or scope beyond the conditions under which it was valid. Existing work provides comparatively strong evidence for admission, retrieval, activation, exposure, and local containment, but much less for descendant repair and evaluation after adaptation resumes. We therefore argue for longitudinal evaluation that traces unsafe influence to its originating transition, verifies repair across descendants, and tests whether it can re-emerge under continued evolution.

Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly, with increasingly capable systems taking larger roles in reasoning, decision-making, scientific discovery, and autonomous development. As AI begins to participate in its own improvement, from model training and experience accumulation to agent evolution and automated AI development, the prospect of recursive self-improvement (RSI) is becoming increasingly relevant. This transition raises a fundamental safety question: how can safety be maintained when the system, its accumulated experience, and even the process producing its successors continue to change? We introduce Evolutionary Safety as a perspective for studying safety under persistent and recursive self-improvement. It concerns not only whether an AI system is safe at a particular moment, but how safety properties change, persist, accumulate, and propagate throughout evolution. We characterize recurring manifestations, including intent drift, error accumulation, experience contamination, safety-property erosion, evaluator drift, and risk propagation. We then develop a taxonomy spanning persistent agent state, model state, evaluation and environmental feedback, computational substrate, and meta-level update mechanisms. Building on this taxonomy, we examine how evolutionary risks can be discovered and evaluated across states, updates, trajectories, and lineages, and derive governance principles for modification, selection, authorization, provenance, and recovery. Finally, we outline open problems toward maintaining safety guarantees as AI systems become increasingly persistent, adaptive, and recursively self-improving. Project resources and proposed evaluation systems are available at https://chaunceykung.github.io/evolutionary-safety-rsi.