Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a structured prompt engineering framework with 16 factors across four dimensions (context, evidence, reasoning, security) to improve Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning integrity in LLMs. The framework aims to mitigate hallucination, prevent reasoning drift, and enhance interpretability, particularly in security-sensitive contexts. Evaluations using DDoS attack detection in SDN traffic show that structured prompting improves reasoning (up to 40% in smaller models) and accuracy across different model scales, validated by human evaluation.
Unlock up to 40% reasoning improvements in smaller LLMs simply by structuring your prompts.
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been used to enhance the reasoning capability of LLMs. However, its reliability in security-sensitive analytical tasks remains insufficiently examined, particularly under structured human evaluation. Alternative approaches, such as model scaling and fine-tuning can be used to help improve performance. These methods are also often costly, computationally intensive, or difficult to audit. In contrast, prompt engineering provides a lightweight, transparent, and controllable mechanism for guiding LLM reasoning. This study proposes a structured prompt engineering framework designed to strengthen CoT reasoning integrity while improving security threat and attack detection reliability in local LLM deployments. The framework includes 16 factors grouped into four core dimensions: (1) Context and Scope Control, (2) Evidence Grounding and Traceability, (3) Reasoning Structure and Cognitive Control, and (4) Security-Specific Analytical Constraints. Rather than optimizing the wording of the prompt heuristically, the framework introduces explicit reasoning controls to mitigate hallucination and prevent reasoning drift, as well as strengthening interpretability in security-sensitive contexts. Using DDoS attack detection in SDN traffic as a case study, multiple model families were evaluated under structured and unstructured prompting conditions. Pareto frontier analysis and ablation experiments demonstrate consistent reasoning improvements (up to 40% in smaller models) and stable accuracy gains across scales. Human evaluation with strong inter-rater agreement (Cohen's k>0.80) confirms robustness. The results establish structured prompting as an effective and practical approach for reliable and explainable AI-driven cybersecurity analysis.