Evolutionary Safety of Recursive Self-Improving AI: Taxonomy, Risk Discovery, and Evaluation

AI systems increasingly participate in their own improvement: revising their outputs, adapting their own harnesses during deployment, training on data they generate, and, increasingly, conducting AI research itself. This literature is described under a vocabulary ("self-refine," "self-reward," "self-play," "self-evolve") that conflates fundamentally different ambitions. We survey 1,250 arXiv papers (2024-2026) along two axes: what the system improves -- its behavior in deployment, its policy through training, its evaluator, or the research process itself -- and the degree of loop closure (human-in-the-loop to fully closed). The taxonomy separates bounded self-refinement -- convergent, evaluable, and already industrial practice -- from open-ended recursive self-improvement (RSI), which remains bounded by grounding requirements, collapse dynamics, and compute constraints on every measured axis. Its distinctive feature is a dedicated category for self-evaluation: every improvement loop is a claim that some signal can substitute for human judgment. We survey the evaluator design space -- judges, process reward models, verifiers, rubrics, meta-evaluation -- order the signals into a verification hierarchy from formal verifiers (strongest) to intrinsic self-assessment (weakest), and observe that demonstrated self-improvement strength tracks this hierarchy, that its failure modes (self-confirming loops, model collapse, diversity collapse) follow from its violations, and that the "research direction-setting" bottleneck keeping humans in the loop sits at the top of that hierarchy. We connect the technical literature to the theory of RSI limits and to the safety and governance questions raised by frontier-lab accounts of closing the loop, and identify governance-grade measurement of self-improvement as the field's most underpopulated niche.

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) offers a route to AI systems that participate in their own continued development. Recent methods allow language agents to retain changes to their parameters, memory, skills, and code for subsequent execution and improvement. We examine how these methods can inform new research ideas through two complementary perspectives. First, we introduce a unified taxonomy with nine design dimensions organized into four groups: update targets, update organization, update schedule and scope, feedback and selection. This taxonomy places existing methods in a shared design space, where examining individual dimensions and their interactions can inspire new research ideas. Second, we examine how existing RSI methods draw on traditional deep learning, for example through optimization, regularization, data augmentation, continual learning, and adversarial learning. We develop further ideas by examining more specific learning mechanisms and drawing on evolutionary computation. We also review how existing benchmarks assess self-improvement under online, offline, and offline-to-online settings. Together, these perspectives help researchers develop new RSI research ideas from existing designs and learning mechanisms. RSI papers and resources are available at https://prism-shadow.github.io/awesome-rsi/.

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.