The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Jailbreaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Study
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, have demonstrated vast potential but also introduce challenges related to content constraints and potential misuse. Our study investigates three key research questions: (1) the number of different prompt types that can jailbreak LLMs, (2) the effectiveness of jailbreak prompts in circumventing LLM constraints, and (3) the resilience of ChatGPT against these jailbreak prompts. Initially, we develop a classification model to analyze the distribution of existing prompts, identifying ten distinct patterns and three categories of jailbreak prompts. Subsequently, we assess the jailbreak capability of prompts with ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0, utilizing a dataset of 3,120 jailbreak questions across eight prohibited scenarios. Finally, we evaluate the resistance of ChatGPT against jailbreak prompts, finding that the prompts can consistently evade the restrictions in 40 use-case scenarios. The study underscores the importance of prompt structures in jailbreaking LLMs and discusses the challenges of robust jailbreak prompt generation and prevention.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“These fall into two categories: manually constructed prompts requiring greater complexity (Liu et al., 2024), and methods to algorithmically generate prompts and automatically optimise their construction (Shin et al., 2020;Guo et al., 2021).”
From Generative AI and intellectual property: a systematic literature review of possible issues and mitigations (2026) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- B. Zhang, B. Haddow, and A. Birch, "Prompting large language model for machine translation: A case study," CoRR, vol. abs/2301.07069, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.07069 · DOI
- C. Zhang, C. Zhang, S. Zheng, Y. Qiao, C. Li, M. Zhang, S. K. Dam, C. M. Thwal, Y. L. Tun, L. L. Huy, D. U. Kim, S. Bae, L. Lee, Y. Yang, H. T. Shen, I. S. Kweon, and C. S. Hong, "A complete survey on generative AI (AIGC): is chatgpt from GPT-4 to GPT-5 all you need?" CoRR, vol. abs/2303.11717, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.11717 · DOI
- J. Ni, T. Young, V. Pandelea, F. Xue, and E. Cambria, "Recent advances in deep learning based dialogue systems: a systematic survey," Artif. Intell. Rev., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 3055-3155, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10248-8 · DOI
- K. Stol, P. Ralph, and B. Fitzgerald, "Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines," in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA, May 14-22, 2016, L. K. Dillon, W. Visser, and L. A. Williams, Eds. ACM, 2016, pp. 120-131. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884833 · DOI · Paper page
- W. Wang, J. Huang, W. Wu, J. Zhang, Y. Huang, S. Li, P. He, and M. R. Lyu, "MTTM: metamorphic testing for textual content moderation software," CoRR, vol. abs/2302.05706, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.05706 · DOI
Cited by
Eight Methods to Evaluate Robust Unlearning in LLMs
Lynch, A., Guo, P., Ewart, A., Casper, S., & Hadfield-Menell, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.16835 · Cited by 188
Oniani, D., Hilsman, J., Peng, Y., Poropatich, R. K., Pamplin, J. C., Legault, G. L., & Wang, Y. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00965-x · Cited by 143
Applications of natural language processing and large language models in materials discovery
Jiang, X., Wang, W., Tian, S., Wang, H., Lookman, T., & Su, Y. (2025) · npj Computational Materials · doi:10.1038/s41524-025-01554-0 · Cited by 145
Beyond human expertise: the promise and limitations of ChatGPT in suicide risk assessment
Elyoseph, Z., & Levkovich, I. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1213141 · Cited by 116
Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
Casper, S., Davies, X., Shi, C., Gilbert, T. K., Scheurer, J., Rando, J., Freedman, R., Korbak, T., Lindner, D., Freire, P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15217 · Cited by 101
“, subverting the constraints the system is normally meant to operate under) or prompt injection/extraction (Willison, 2023; Albert, 2023; Oneal, 2023; Li et al., 2023a; Wolf et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023; Rao et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2023).”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, Y., Deng, G., Xu, Z., Li, Y., Zheng, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhao, L., Zhang, T., Wang, K., & Liu, Y.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2305.13860
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Jailbreaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2305.13860
- The paper
- Liu, Y., Deng, G., Xu, Z., Li, Y., Zheng, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhao, L., Zhang, T., Wang, K., & Liu, Y. (2023). Jailbreaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Study. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2305.13860
