Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Detection Method for Prompt Injection by Integrating Pre-trained Model and Heuristic Feature Engineering

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes DMPI-PMHFE, a dual-channel detector that fuses DeBERTa-v3-base semantic features with hand-built heuristic rules, and claims it outperforms existing prompt-injection detectors while sharply reducing attack success…

desk verdict Sensible dual-channel detector, but the deployment claim rests on ASR alone without a false-positive rate, so the main result is not yet demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06384 v1 pith:JOK62D4X submitted 2025-06-05 cs.CL cs.AI

Yi Ji , Runzhi Li , Baolei Mao This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords promptinjectionlargelanguagemodelsDeBERTafeatureengineeringheuristicrulesactivedefenseattacksuccessratedual-channelfusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes DMPI-PMHFE, a detector that pairs a DeBERTa-v3-base language model with hand-built heuristic rules to catch direct prompt-injection attacks before they reach an LLM. The authors aim to show that this two-channel design—semantic vectors plus explicit structural and lexical flags—detects more attacks than existing detectors and works consistently across different LLMs. They report that it outperforms four strong baseline detectors on accuracy, recall, and F1-score across three datasets, and that when used as an active filter it lowers attack success rates on GLM-4, Llama-3, Qwen2.5, and GPT-4o far below two prompt-level defenses, Self-Reminder and Self-Defense. The claimed payoff is a practical, model-agnostic defense that avoids the trade-off between robustness and versatility seen in other approaches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dual-channel feature fusion architecture. Channel one is DeBERTa-v3-base, whose transformer encoder produces contextual token representations that are average-pooled into a fixed-size semantic vector. Channel two is a set of hand-engineered binary flags: eight synonym lists (built by word-frequency analysis on the training set and expanded with WordNet) that mark the presence of attack semantics such as "ignore," "urgent," "covert," and "hypothetical," plus two pattern-matching rules—a regex that counts Q&A pairs to flag many-shot attacks and a repeated-token detector—each with a threshold of 3. The two vectors are concatenated and passed through fully connected layers with ReLU and SoftMax for classification. The fusion is what lets the model exploit both implicit meaning and explicit surface patterns.

What would settle it

Run DMPI-PMHFE on a fresh set of attacks whose wording deliberately avoids the ten synonym lists and the Q&A/repetition thresholds—for example, paraphrased "ignore previous instructions" commands using synonyms absent from the WordNet lists—and check whether recall falls to the level of the DeBERTa-only ablation (M1). If the drop is large, the heuristic channel is memorizing surface forms rather than attack structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that combining dense contextual representations from a pre-trained encoder with sparse, interpretable heuristic features—synonym sets and regex patterns for known attack forms—yields a prompt-injection detector that is both more accurate and more portable than relying on either channel alone. In the paper's experiments, DMPI-PMHFE achieves the highest accuracy, recall, and F1-score among the compared detectors on all three test sets, and in deployment-like evaluation it reduces attack success rates to between 10.35% and 14.34% across five LLM variants, compared with 11.95%–39.84% for the best prompt-level baselines. The authors interpret this as evidence that explicit attack-pattern knowledge complements contextual semantics rather than duplicating it.

Load-bearing premise

The hand-built keyword lists and regex thresholds were derived from the safeguard-v2 training distribution and tuned on its validation set, so the claimed generalization to new datasets and novel attacks assumes that these surface patterns are universal indicators of prompt injection rather than artifacts of that one data distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detector that sits in front of any LLM can be updated with new heuristic rules as new attack patterns are discovered, without retraining the semantic channel.
  • Because the heuristic features are human readable, a blocked prompt can be explained by which flags fired, giving security teams an audit trail rather than an opaque score.
  • The reported ASR reductions suggest that filtering inputs before they reach the model can be more reliable than relying on the model's own self-monitoring, especially for smaller models like Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.
  • The method's recall gains over precision-focused baselines imply fewer missed attacks at the cost of some false alarms, which the paper presents as a favorable trade.
  • The training setup can be ported to new LLM families because detection never depends on the target model's weights.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the heuristic flags are fixed word sets and thresholds, an adversary who paraphrases around those lists should be able to reduce detection recall; testing this would require an adversarially rewritten attack set, which the paper does not include.
  • Editorial inference: the same dual-channel idea should transfer to indirect prompt injection by running the detector on retrieved documents or tool outputs, since those contexts are exactly where the pattern flags (e.g., many-shot Q&A) also appear.
  • Editorial inference: the interpretable flags suggest a cheaper deployment path—a small classifier that only reads the flags, or a distilled student, could stand in for the full DeBERTa encoder in latency-sensitive settings, at some cost in accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DMPI-PMHFE, a dual-channel prompt injection detection framework that combines a DeBERTa-v3-base semantic channel with a hand-crafted heuristic feature channel (synonym matching and pattern matching), fusing the two representations through an MLP for classification. The authors report detection experiments on three datasets (safeguard-v2, ivanleomk-v2, deepset-v2) against four detection baselines, ablation results for the three modules, and a deployment-style evaluation in which DMPI-PMHFE is used as an input filter before five LLMs (glm-4-9b-chat, Llama-3-8B-Instruct, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, ChatGPT-4o), comparing attack success rate (ASR) against Self-Reminder and Self-Defense. The central claims are that DMPI-PMHFE outperforms existing detectors in accuracy, recall, and F1, and that as an active defense it significantly reduces ASR across mainstream LLMs.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful practical contribution: it demonstrates that a lightweight heuristic channel can complement a pretrained semantic detector, and it provides an external evaluation on two public benchmark datasets as well as a multi-LLM deployment study. The paper ships explicit algorithms and appendices describing the heuristic feature sets, which aids reproducibility. The ablation study showing monotonic gains from adding synonym and pattern matching is informative. However, the significance is currently limited by evaluation-design issues: the deployment metric does not measure utility loss, the baselines are not fine-tuned on the same training data, and the heuristic features are tuned on the same benchmark distribution as the main test set. These issues do not invalidate the approach, but they do mean the headline claims are not yet supported at the strength stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Table 3] The deployment evaluation reports only attack success rate and the number of successful attacks, never the false-positive rate on benign inputs or the decision threshold used by DMPI-PMHFE. This is load-bearing because DMPI-PMHFE is a filter that blocks inputs before they reach the LLM, whereas Self-Reminder and Self-Defense modify the prompt or examine the output without blocking. A filter that blocks every input would achieve ASR 0 while destroying all utility. Given that Table 1 shows DMPI-PMHFE consistently has lower precision than SafeGuard (98.00% vs 99.58% on safeguard-v2), the false-positive cost is real and must be measured on a representative set of benign prompts before the claim that DMPI-PMHFE offers 'the most robust protection' can be accepted.
  2. [§3.2, Appendix A.1, A.2] The heuristic features are fitted to the evaluation distribution: the synonym keyword sets are extracted via word-frequency analysis of the safeguard-v2 training data, and the two pattern-matching thresholds (3 for Q&A pairs and 3 for repeated tokens) are selected via sensitivity analysis on the validation set of the same benchmark. Consequently, the safeguard-v2 test-set results in Table 1 are partly self-fulfilling. The external datasets deepset-v2 and ivanleomk-v2 provide some independent grounding, but the authors do not report how the thresholds or keyword sets would behave on disjoint attack patterns. To support the generalization claim, the paper should either report a systematic robustness analysis on held-out attack types or explicitly qualify the safeguard-v2 results as in-distribution.
  3. [§4.2, §4.3, Table 1] The comparison against Fmops, ProtectAI, SafeGuard, and InjecGuard is asymmetric: those four baselines are used off-the-shelf as pretrained Hugging Face models, while DMPI-PMHFE is fine-tuned on the safeguard-v2 training split. The reported gains on safeguard-v2 (e.g., F1 98.29 vs 97.17 for InjecGuard) could therefore reflect the advantage of in-distribution fine-tuning rather than the proposed architecture. The paper should either fine-tune the baselines on the same training data, or evaluate DMPI-PMHFE in a zero-shot or off-the-shelf configuration, so that the comparison measures the method rather than the training protocol.
  4. [§4.3, Tables 1 and 2] No measure of statistical significance or variance is reported: each result comes from a single train/test split with no repeated runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several headline differences are small (e.g., DMPI-PMHFE accuracy 97.94% vs InjecGuard 97.87% on safeguard-v2), and the absence of variance information makes it impossible to determine whether these differences are meaningful. At minimum, the authors should report results over multiple random seeds and indicate the spread.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§1] The section heading is misspelled as 'Intruction' and should read 'Introduction'.
  2. [§1, Contribution 2] 'Base on an analysis' should be 'Based on an analysis'.
  3. [§4.3, Table 1] The dataset name 'Ivanleomk-v2' is misspelled as 'lvanlcomk-v2' in the text following Table 1.
  4. [§1] Reference [5] appears as '?,6' in the text; a proper citation is missing.
  5. [Figure 2] The ⊕ symbols and the exact concatenation operation in the figure are not explained in the caption; a short caption describing the data flow would improve readability.
  6. [Algorithm 2] The algorithm inputs list WordNetW, but WordNet is never used inside the pattern-matching procedure; either remove it from the input list or clarify its intended role.
  7. [§3.2] The paper states that a 'systematic sensitivity analysis' was performed for the thresholds but does not present the analysis or a plot; adding a small figure or table of threshold versus precision/recall would make the selection reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: heuristic features are ordinary data-driven feature engineering, external datasets are independent, and no self-citation is load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The heuristic channel's synonym lists and matching thresholds are derived from the safeguard-v2 training/validation data (§3.2, Appendices A.1–A.2), and the classifier is trained on that split, but the reported safeguard-v2 test scores are on a held-out 10% split and the paper additionally reports results on two external datasets (deepset-v2, ivanleomk-v2) not used for feature construction. The DeBERTa channel is an externally pre-trained encoder with its own published training procedure. No step equates a fitted parameter with a predicted quantity; the threshold '3' is a hyperparameter selected by sensitivity analysis, not the model's output. There are no author self-citations invoked to support the central claim. The deployment comparison (Table 3) omits a benign-input blocking rate, so the ASR reduction alone does not prove superior defense utility, but that is an evaluation-design concern rather than a circularity: it does not make the reported numbers true by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or theoretical entities. Its reliance on free parameters is concentrated in the heuristic channel: fitted keyword lists and two tuned thresholds. Main assumptions are domain assumptions about attack coverage and the validity of synonym expansion.

free parameters (3)
  • is_shot_attack threshold = 3
    Number of Q&A pairs required to flag many-shot attack; tuned via sensitivity analysis in §3.2 to balance precision and recall.
  • is_repeated_token threshold = 3
    Number of repeated tokens required to flag repetition attack; tuned via sensitivity analysis in §3.2.
  • Keyword sets for 8 semantic attacks = See Appendix A.1
    Derived from word-frequency analysis on the training set and expanded via WordNet; this is feature selection fitted to the training data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 10 hand-crafted attack categories (8 semantic, 2 structural) sufficiently cover direct prompt injection for detection.
    The heuristic channel only activates on these patterns; attacks outside the taxonomy receive no explicit signal (Appendix A.1 and A.2).
  • domain assumption WordNet synonym expansion preserves the semantic intent of attack keywords.
    Algorithm 1 relies on WordNet to enlarge keyword lists; overly broad or narrow expansions would distort the binary feature vector.
  • ad hoc to paper DeBERTa semantics and heuristic features can be effectively fused by simple concatenation and an MLP with ReLU.
    Late fusion is chosen empirically; no theoretical analysis motivates the fusion architecture (§3.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection Method for Prompt Injection by Integrating Pre-trained Model and Heuristic Feature Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JOK62D4X

@misc{pith2026250606384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection Method for Prompt Injection by Integrating Pre-trained Model and Heuristic Feature Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JOK62D4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06384}
}
read the original abstract

With the widespread adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs), prompt injection attacks have emerged as a significant security threat. Existing defense mechanisms often face critical trade-offs between effectiveness and generalizability. This highlights the urgent need for efficient prompt injection detection methods that are applicable across a wide range of LLMs. To address this challenge, we propose DMPI-PMHFE, a dual-channel feature fusion detection framework. It integrates a pretrained language model with heuristic feature engineering to detect prompt injection attacks. Specifically, the framework employs DeBERTa-v3-base as a feature extractor to transform input text into semantic vectors enriched with contextual information. In parallel, we design heuristic rules based on known attack patterns to extract explicit structural features commonly observed in attacks. Features from both channels are subsequently fused and passed through a fully connected neural network to produce the final prediction. This dual-channel approach mitigates the limitations of relying only on DeBERTa to extract features. Experimental results on diverse benchmark datasets demonstrate that DMPI-PMHFE outperforms existing methods in terms of accuracy, recall, and F1-score. Furthermore, when deployed actually, it significantly reduces attack success rates across mainstream LLMs, including GLM-4, LLaMA 3, Qwen 2.5, and GPT-4o.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06384 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An Example of Direct Prompt Injection Attack Researchers have proposed various defense strategies against prompt injec￾tion attacks. While these approaches reduce attack risks, they faces critical lim￾itations in balancing defense robustness with model versatility. Simultaneously, the rapid emergence of LLMs has intensified demand for high-performing, versa￾tile models. To address these challenges, we propose DMPI-P… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Architecture of DMPI-PMHFE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of the Defense Effectiveness Evaluation Experiments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. CrackedPDFs: A Controlled Benchmark for Hidden Prompt Injection in PDFs

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A document-aware hybrid detector that inspects PDF structure before text flattening outperforms text-only guardrails and structural-only models on a new 29,322-file controlled hidden-prompt-injection benchmark.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Train- ing language models to follow instructions with human feedback.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Train- ing language models to follow instructions with human feedback.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(240):1–113, 2023

    Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebas- tian Gehrmann, et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(240):1–113, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and societal impact of large language models (2021).arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.02503, 2021

    Alex Tamkin, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli. Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and societal impact of large language models (2021).arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.02503, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Musiclm: Generating music from text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325, 2023

    Andrea Agostinelli, Timo I Denk, Zalán Borsos, Jesse Engel, Mauro Verzetti, An- toine Caillon, Qingqing Huang, Aren Jansen, Adam Roberts, Marco Tagliasacchi, et al. Musiclm: Generating music from text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Audiogpt: Under- standing and generating speech, music, sound, and talking head

    Rongjie Huang, Mingze Li, Dongchao Yang, Jiatong Shi, Xuankai Chang, Zhenhui Ye, Yuning Wu, Zhiqing Hong, Jiawei Huang, Jinglin Liu, et al. Audiogpt: Under- standing and generating speech, music, sound, and talking head. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 23802–23804, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Understanding large-language model (llm)-powered human-robot interaction

    Callie Y Kim, Christine P Lee, and Bilge Mutlu. Understanding large-language model (llm)-powered human-robot interaction. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pages 371–380, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Security and privacy challenges of large language models: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 57(6):1– 39, 2025

    Badhan Chandra Das, M Hadi Amini, and Yanzhao Wu. Security and privacy challenges of large language models: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 57(6):1– 39, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    A survey on large language model (llm) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly.High-Confidence Computing, page 100211, 2024

    Yifan Yao, Jinhao Duan, Kaidi Xu, Yuanfang Cai, Zhibo Sun, and Yue Zhang. A survey on large language model (llm) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly.High-Confidence Computing, page 100211, 2024

    2024

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Owasp top 10 list for large language models, 2024

    OWASP Foundation. Owasp top 10 list for large language models, 2024. https://owasp.org/www-project-top-10-for-large-language-model-applications

    2024

  2. [10]

    Ignore previous prompt: Attack techniques for lan- guage models

    Fábio Perez and Ian Ribeiro. Ignore previous prompt: Attack techniques for lan- guage models. InNeurIPS ML Safety Workshop, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Not what you’ve signed up for: Compromising real-world llm-integrated applications with indirect prompt injection

    Kai Greshake, Sahar Abdelnabi, Shailesh Mishra, Christoph Endres, Thorsten Holz, and Mario Fritz. Not what you’ve signed up for: Compromising real-world llm-integrated applications with indirect prompt injection. InProceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligenc...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Formalizing and benchmarking prompt injection attacks and defenses

    Yupei Liu, Yuqi Jia, Runpeng Geng, Jinyuan Jia, and Neil Zhenqiang Gong. Formalizing and benchmarking prompt injection attacks and defenses. In33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24), pages 1831–1847, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Soft begging: Modular and efficient shielding of llms against prompt injection and jailbreaking based on prompt tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03391, 2024

    Simon Ostermann, Kevin Baum, Christoph Endres, Julia Masloh, and Patrick Schramowski. Soft begging: Modular and efficient shielding of llms against prompt injection and jailbreaking based on prompt tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03391, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Many-shot jail- breaking.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:129696–129742, 2025

    CemAnil,EsinDurmus,NinaPanickssery,MrinankSharma,JoeBenton,Sandipan Kundu, Joshua Batson, Meg Tong, Jesse Mu, Daniel Ford, et al. Many-shot jail- breaking.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:129696–129742, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:53728–53741, 2023

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:53728–53741, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Flo- rencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Debertav3: Improving deberta us- ing electra-style pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09543, 2021

    Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. Debertav3: Improving deberta us- ing electra-style pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09543, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    fmops/distilbert-prompt-injection, 2024

    Blueteam AI. fmops/distilbert-prompt-injection, 2024. https://huggingface.co/fmops/distilbert-prompt-injection

    2024

  12. [20]

    Fine-tuned deberta-v3-base for prompt injection detection, 2024

    ProtectAI.com. Fine-tuned deberta-v3-base for prompt injection detection, 2024. https://huggingface.co/ProtectAI/deberta-v3-base-prompt-injection-v2

    2024

  13. [21]

    Safeguard: A benchmark suite for evaluating attacks and defenses on llm safety, 2023

    Chuyi Shang, Aryan Goyal, Lutfi Eren Erdogan, and Siddarth Ijju. Safeguard: A benchmark suite for evaluating attacks and defenses on llm safety, 2023. https://devpost.com/software/safeguard-a1hfp4

    2023

  14. [22]

    Injecguard: Benchmarking and mitigating over-defense in prompt injection guardrail models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22770, 2024

    Hao Li and Xiaogeng Liu. Injecguard: Benchmarking and mitigating over-defense in prompt injection guardrail models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22770, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Apply- ing pre-trained multilingual bert in embeddings for improved malicious prompt injection attacks detection

    Md Abdur Rahman, Hossain Shahriar, Fan Wu, and Alfredo Cuzzocrea. Apply- ing pre-trained multilingual bert in embeddings for improved malicious prompt injection attacks detection. In2024 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, and Internet of Thing...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Struq: Defending against prompt injection with structured queries.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06363, 2024

    Sizhe Chen, Julien Piet, Chawin Sitawarin, and David Wagner. Struq: Defending against prompt injection with structured queries.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06363, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Jatmo: Prompt injection defense by task- specific finetuning

    Julien Piet, Maha Alrashed, Chawin Sitawarin, Sizhe Chen, Zeming Wei, Elizabeth Sun, Basel Alomair, and David Wagner. Jatmo: Prompt injection defense by task- specific finetuning. InEuropean Symposium on Research in Computer Security, pages 105–124. Springer, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Llm self defense: By self examina- tion, llms know they are being tricked

    Mansi Phute, Alec Helbling, Matthew Daniel Hull, ShengYun Peng, Sebastian Szyller, Cory Cornelius, and Duen Horng Chau. Llm self defense: By self examina- tion, llms know they are being tricked. InThe Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Defending chatgpt against jailbreak attack via self- reminders.Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(12):1486–1496, 2023

    Yueqi Xie, Jingwei Yi, Jiawei Shao, Justin Curl, Lingjuan Lyu, Qifeng Chen, Xing Xie, and Fangzhao Wu. Defending chatgpt against jailbreak attack via self- reminders.Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(12):1486–1496, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    I hate human

    Manish Bhatt, Sahana Chennabasappa, Yue Li, Cyrus Nikolaidis, Daniel Song, Shengye Wan, Faizan Ahmad, Cornelius Aschermann, Yaohui Chen, Dhaval Kapil, et al. Cyberseceval 2: A wide-ranging cybersecurity evaluation suite for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13161...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.