PreprintCited by 1Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSecurity and Verification in ComputingPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

David vs. Goliath: Verifiable Agent-to-Agent Jailbreaking via Reinforcement Learning

Open access
Nellessen, Samuel, Kachman, Tal·2026·arXiv

Abstract

The evolution of large language models into autonomous agents introduces adversarial failures that exploit legitimate tool privileges, transforming safety evaluation in tool-augmented environments from a subjective NLP task into an objective control problem. We formalize this threat model as Tag-Along Attacks: a scenario where a tool-less adversary "tags along" on the trusted privileges of a safety-aligned Operator to induce prohibited tool use through conversation alone. To validate this threat, we present Slingshot, a 'cold-start' reinforcement learning framework that autonomously discovers emergent attack vectors, revealing a critical insight: in our setting, learned attacks tend to converge to short, instruction-like syntactic patterns rather than multi-turn persuasion. On held-out extreme-difficulty tasks, Slingshot achieves a 67.0% success rate against a Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct-AWQ Operator (vs. 1.7% baseline), reducing the expected attempts to first success (on solved tasks) from 52.3 to 1.3. Crucially, Slingshot transfers zero-shot to several model families, including closed-source models like Gemini 2.5 Flash (56.0% attack success rate) and defensive-fine-tuned open-source models like Meta-SecAlign-8B (39.2% attack success rate). Our work establishes Tag-Along Attacks as a first-class, verifiable threat model and shows that effective agentic attacks can be elicited from off-the-shelf open-weight models through environment interaction alone.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2602.02395

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Authors
Nellessen, S., & Kachman, T.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7127310348
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
jailbreaking, LLM agents, tool misuse, adversarial attacks, zero-shot transfer, slingshot

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review