# Divide, Consult, Conquer: Capability Laundering Through Aligned LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15383 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.15383/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 20 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11717/) (2024)
- [Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automatically](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02119/) (2023)
- [Great, Now Write an Article About That: The Crescendo Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreak Attack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01833/) (2024)
- [Constitutional Classifiers: Defending against Universal Jailbreaks across Thousands of Hours of Red Teaming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18837/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models are Versatile Decomposers: Decompose Evidence and Questions for Table-based Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13808/) (2023)
- [Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08926/) (2024)
- [A Comprehensive Study of Jailbreak Attack versus Defense for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13457/) (2024)
- [DrAttack: Prompt Decomposition and Reconstruction Makes Powerful LLM Jailbreakers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16914/) (2024)
- [Successive Prompting for Decomposing Complex Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.04092/) (2022)
- [Against The Achilles' Heel: A Survey on Red Teaming for Generative Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.00629/) (2024)
- [BountyBench: Dollar Impact of AI Agent Attackers and Defenders on Real-World Cybersecurity Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.15216/) (2025)
- [Chasing Moving Targets with Online Self-Play Reinforcement Learning for Safer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07468/) (2025)
- [Adversaries Can Misuse Combinations of Safe Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14595/) (2024)
- [Monitoring Decomposition Attacks in LLMs with Lightweight Sequential Monitors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.10949/) (2025)
- [SoK: Evaluating Jailbreak Guardrails for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.10597/) (2025)
- [Comparison requires valid measurement: Rethinking attack success rate comparisons in AI red teaming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.18076/) (2026)
- [Latent-space adversarial training with post-aware calibration for defending large language models against jailbreak attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10639/) (2025)
- [GRP-Obliteration: Unaligning LLMs With a Single Unlabeled Prompt](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06258/) (2026)
- [Not All Refusals Are Equal: How Safety Alignment Fails Cybersecurity at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02714/) (2026)
- [Decomposition Attacks Across Unlinkable Identities: Limits of Stateful Defenses for LLM Services](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.17445/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Language model safety is typically evaluated one interaction at a time. We show that a weaker, unaligned model can split a harmful task into benign-looking subproblems, consult a stronger aligned model independently on each, and combine the answers locally. We call this attack capability laundering. Unlike a jailbreak, no single response is a harmful task. We measure consultation-aided uplift using tasks that a raw frontier model solves, the aligned frontier refuses, and the unassisted orchestrator fails. We evaluate GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, and Grok-4.3 as consultants to four local orchestrators on CyBench, BountyBench, and harmful CBRN requests. On CyBench, Gemma-4-31B recovers 8/14 candidates with GPT-5.5 and 7/9 with Opus, compared with 2/21 and 4/15 for Gemma-4-12B. On BountyBench, Gemma-4-31B recovers 3/9 and 2/3 candidates, while Muse-Glimmer-30B recovers none of 22 and 13. For CBRN, we measure uplift across eight steps of a hypothetical bioweapon attack chain and find that consultation raises Gemma-4-31B's mean rubric score from 62.3 to 83.1 on a 100-point rubric scale. These results expose a gap in current defenses: refusing a harmful task does not prevent frontier capabilities from being transferred and composed across many individually permitted interactions.