Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Recursive language models for jailbreak detection: a procedural defense for tool-augmented agents

Doron ShavitPublished Feb 18, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Thin evidence
Verify before relying
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.

Jailbreak prompts are a practical and evolving threat to large language models (LLMs), particularly in agentic systems that execute tools over untrusted content. Many attacks exploit long-context hiding, semantic camouflage, and lightweight obfuscations that can evade single-pass guardrails. We present RLM-JB, an end-to-end jailbreak detection framework built on Recursive Language Models (RLMs), in which a root model orchestrates a bounded analysis program that transforms the input, queries worker models over covered segments, and aggregates evidence into an auditable decision. RLM-JB treats detection as a procedure rather than a one-shot classification: it normalizes and de-obfuscates suspicious inputs, chunks text to reduce context dilution and guarantee coverage, performs parallel chunk screening, and composes cross-chunk signals to recover split-payload attacks. On AutoDAN-style adversarial inputs, RLM-JB achieves high detection effectiveness across three LLM backends (ASR/Recall 92.5-98.0%) while maintaining very high precision (98.99-100%) and low false positive rates (0.0-2.0%), highlighting a practical sensitivity-specificity trade-off as the screening backend changes.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: hot
Jailbreak prompts are a practical and evolving threat to large language models (LLMs), particularly in agentic systems that execute tools over untrusted content.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Aug 24, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Repositories and ecosystem

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Agentic tool use

Methods

Transformer, Agentic systems

Domains

Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models, AI Agents

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers