David vs. Goliath: Verifiable Agent-to-Agent Jailbreaking via Reinforcement Learning
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Tag-Along attacks achieve 67% success via RL-based agent-to-agent jailbreaking.
“Tag-Along attacks [14] achieve 67% success via RL-based agent-to-agent jailbreaking.”
From SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [14]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
- Authors
- Nellessen, S., & Kachman, T.
- ORCID
- Kachman, Tal
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2602.02395
- OpenAlex
- W7127310348
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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