Semantics as a Shield: Label Disguise Defense (LDD) against Prompt Injection in LLM Sentiment Classification

LLM agents increasingly rely on activation probes as runtime monitors for prompt injection, jailbreaks, and unsafe requests, reading the model's own hidden state to catch a harmful input before the agent acts on it. A cheap, increasingly common move, borrowed from LLM-as-judge prompting, is to append a short classification instruction after the user's turn and read the probe at that point, to sharpen it: the instruction asks the model to represent the incoming request as a class, concentrating the signal the probe must separate, at negligible serving cost. But does the wording of that suffix matter, and does its benefit hold in the wild, on attack types the probe never saw in training, the regime a deployed monitor faces? We test this with a controlled ladder of post-user suffixes under strict leave-one-dataset-out (LODO) evaluation across 13 safety benchmarks (jailbreak, injection, and benign chat) and three open-weight model families (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen3.5-9B, Gemma-4-12B). On a single-position probe, a classification suffix consistently improves out-of-distribution detection over no suffix (up to ~4 AUC points); yet which suffix matters: prompting the model to classify the input, even into content-free labels, reliably wins; an off-topic or merely-attentive suffix helps little. The gain comes from the classification format, not the named criterion: a content-free suffix matches the real malicious/benign one, with the criterion adding precision only at strict thresholds. This is not an artifact of the single-position read: the benefit carries to the multi-position pooling probes used in production (attention, multi-max, MLP), though the best-performing suffix there is readout-dependent. Served through a KV-cache fork, it is a cheap drop-in for any activation-probe monitor, though not an automatic win: which suffix helps, and by how much, depends on the model and the readout.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in production systems, raising concerns about their exposure to adversarial manipulation through prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. Classifier-based guardrails, such as Prompt Guard 2, are widely used as a first line of defense against such attacks, but their internal decision logic is largely opaque to both defenders and attackers. This paper presents an exploratory case study that applies explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques to analyze how Prompt Guard 2 distinguishes malicious from benign prompts. We conduct four experiments to probe this question empirically. Guided by Vanilla Gradient and SHAP attributions, we find that Prompt Guard 2's decisions rely on the cumulative contribution of many tokens rather than a few dominant ones, yet saliency-guided synonym substitution and sentence-level paraphrasing can flip its predictions while altering only a moderate fraction of the text, in some cases yielding a successful jailbreak against the underlying LLM. A dataset-scale saliency analysis further shows that undetected injection prompts systematically lack the lexical markers the classifier relies on. We discuss the implications of these findings for the design and evaluation of classifier-based guardrails, and argue that explanation methods intended to support transparency can simultaneously lower the cost of constructing successful adversarial bypasses.

LLMs see the world as a single stream of text, partitioned into roles like <user> or <tool>. We trace prompt injection to role confusion: models perceive the source of text from how it sounds, not its labeled role. A command hidden in a webpage hijacks an agent simply because it sounds like <user> text, despite its <tool> label. We design role probes to measure how LLMs internally perceive "who is speaking," and find that injected text occupies the same representational space as the trusted role it imitates. We demonstrate this with CoT Forgery, a zero-shot attack that injects fabricated reasoning into user prompts and tool outputs. Models mistake the forgery for their own thoughts, yielding 60% attack success against frontier models with near-zero baselines. Strikingly, the degree of role confusion predicts attack success before a single token is generated. This mechanism generalizes beyond CoT Forgery to standard agent prompt injections, revealing prompt injection as a measurable consequence of role perception. To the model, sounding like a role is indistinguishable from being one. Project page and writeup: https://role-confusion.github.io