ENDOPROMPT: Victim-Side Pseudo-References for Utility Degradation
On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security also fits: Backdoor and data poisoning attacks
Abstract (arXiv)
Prompt injection can degrade benign task performance without eliciting harmful content. Yet many attack objectives depend on task labels or predefined target responses. We present ENDOPROMPT, a white-box method that learns utility-degrading prefixes from unlabeled instructions. Its generator takes the request text as input. Clean victim continuations serve as pseudo-references: local search identifies prefixes that reduce continuation likelihood, and preference fitting on comparisons within the same instruction, followed by reward refinement, distills this signal into a generator. At deployment, the generator produces one prefix per request without further victim-side search. Across four instruction-tuned models and the complete splits of seven benign benchmarks, ENDOPROMPT yields a mean utility change of -26.8 percentage points; 27 of 28 cells are negative. Failure analysis reveals output expansion and prefix reuse; the controls do not establish a degradation advantage from request matching. Victim-derived supervision can reveal utility weaknesses without benchmark feedback or prescribed failure responses. The code will be released upon acceptance.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 26 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.
Builds on
26 of 31 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025System Prompt Poisoning: Persistent Attacks on Large Language Models Beyond User Injection10 May
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection23 Feb
Other references · 24
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,065
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,928
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,767
12 more
- 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,143
- 2023A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferencescited by 906
- 2019Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLPcited by 709
- 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 663
- 2020BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial Attack Against BERT Using BERTcited by 488
- 2023Hard Prompts Made Easy: Gradient-Based Discrete Optimization for Prompt Tuning and Discoverycited by 329
- 2023PromptRobust: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models on Adversarial Promptscited by 218
- 2024AmpleGCG: Learning a Universal and Transferable Generative Model of Adversarial Suffixes for Jailbreaking Both Open and Closed LLMscited by 160
- 2024AdvPrompter: Fast Adaptive Adversarial Prompting for LLMscited by 146
- 2024Fast Adversarial Attacks on Language Models In One GPU Minutecited by 85
- 2024On the Worst Prompt Performance of Large Language Modelscited by 36
- 2024LLM Safeguard is a Double-Edged Sword: Exploiting False Positives for Denial-of-Service Attackscited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.