mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Attacker in the Mirror: Breaking Self-Consistency in Safety via Anchored Bipolicy Self-Play

arXiv 2605.08427 ↗First posted 8 May 2026cs.AI cs.GT cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Self-play red team is an established approach to improving AI safety in which different instances of the same model play attacker and defender roles in a zero-sum game, i.e., where the attacker tries to jailbreak the defender; if self-play converges to a Nash equilibrium, the model is guaranteed to respond safely within the settings of the game. Although the parameter sharing enforced by the use of the same model for the two roles improves stability and performance, it introduces fundamental theoretical and architectural limitations. We show that the set of Nash equilibria that can be reached corresponds to a broad class of behaviours that includes trivial always refuse strategies and oracle-like defenders, thus limiting practical applicability. We then show that when attacker and defender share and update the same base model, the dynamics collapse to self-consistency, so that attacks do not enforce adversarial pressure on the defender. In response, we propose Anchored Bipolicy Self-Play, which trains distinct role-specific LoRA adapters on top of a frozen base model, thereby maintaining stable optimisation while preserving adversarial pressure through explicit role separation. In relation to standard self-play, we show up to 100x greater parameter efficiency than finetuning and consistent improvements in safety compared to self-play fine-tuned models. We evaluate on Qwen2.5-{3B, 7B,14B}-IT models across widely used safety benchmarks, showing improved robustness without loss of reasoning ability. Cross-play experiments further show that our attacker and defender models are superior to self-play in terms of adversarial defence and safety.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 36 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2026.

Builds on

36 of 41 references.

References · 36

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
  4. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  5. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  6. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
  7. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  8. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
  9. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
  10. 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,355
  11. 2015Trust Region Policy Optimizationcited by 2,503
  12. 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,140
24 more
  1. 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,793
  2. 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 983
  3. 2023Safe RLHF: Safe Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 630
  4. 2023Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automaticallycited by 619
  5. 2023Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Modelscited by 608
  6. 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMscited by 460
  7. 2025REINFORCE++: Stabilizing Critic-Free Policy Optimization with Global Advantage Normalizationcited by 233
  8. 2024WildTeaming at Scale: From In-the-Wild Jailbreaks to (Adversarially) Safer Language Modelscited by 206
  9. 2024Efficient Adversarial Training in LLMs with Continuous Attackscited by 104
  10. 2024A Comprehensive Study of Jailbreak Attack versus Defense for Large Language Modelscited by 95
  11. 2024Curiosity-driven Red-teaming for Large Language Modelscited by 83
  12. 2025Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agentscited by 66
  13. 2023Adversarial Attacks and Defenses in Large Language Models: Old and New Threatscited by 49
  14. 2025SaLoRA: Safety-Alignment Preserved Low-Rank Adaptationcited by 39
  15. 2016Explaining Predictions of Non-Linear Classifiers in NLPcited by 37
  16. 2025Chasing Moving Targets with Online Self-Play Reinforcement Learning for Safer Language Modelscited by 33
  17. 2022Global Convergence of Localized Policy Iteration in Networked Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 18
  18. 2024Scaling Trends in Language Model Robustnesscited by 18
  19. 2026MAGIC: A Co-Evolving Attacker-Defender Adversarial Game for Robust LLM Safetycited by 15
  20. 2024Efficacy of Language Model Self-Play in Non-Zero-Sum Gamescited by 14
  21. 2023Language Models as a Service: Overview of a New Paradigm and its Challengescited by 10
  22. 2025Incentivizing Truthful Language Models via Peer Elicitation Gamescited by 8
  23. 2026TriPlay-RL: Tri-Role Self-Play Reinforcement Learning for LLM Safety Alignmentcited by 5
  24. 2025Red-Bandit: Test-Time Adaptation for LLM Red-Teaming via Bandit-Guided LoRA Expertscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Be Your Own Red Teamer: Safety Alignment via Self-Play and Reflective Experience Replay
  2. 2026Institutional Red-Teaming: Deployment Rules, Not Just Models, Causally Shape Multi-Agent AI Safety
  3. 2026Indirect tipping: a social attack surface in AI agent populations
  4. 2025Evaluating Control Protocols for Untrusted AI Agents
  5. 2025The Oversight Game: Learning to Cooperatively Balance an AI Agent's Safety and Autonomy
  6. 2026Stay in Character, Stay Safe: Dual-Cycle Adversarial Self-Evolution for Safety Role-Playing Agents
  7. 2026GPT-Red: Automated Red Teaming via Self-Play at Scale
  8. 2026Survive or Collapse: The Asymmetric Roles of Data Gating and Reward Grounding in Self-Play RL