aiqbench analysis
This research investigates prompt injection vulnerabilities in Jev, a non-generative decision model with schema-defined outputs, revealing that while such attacks rarely force target selection, they significantly shift action probabilities. The study demonstrates that adaptive feedback loops can double attacker success rates and identifies small initial decision margins as key factors for exploitation. These findings underscore the critical need to evaluate how untrusted content influences choices within constrained action sets beyond standard generative AI contexts.
Decision Hijacking: Prompt Injection Attacks on Jev's Typed Probabilistic Decisions
arXiv:2609.28613v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Most studies of prompt injection focus on generative agents, leaving their effects on models with schema-defined outputs unclear. We examine these effects in Jev, a non-generative decision model, using 510 reconstructed InjecAgent cases. Malicious content shifts action probabilities but rarely causes Jev to select the attacker's target. Override markers reduce this influence, while claims of contextual relatedness have small effects. Adaptive attacks using score feedback double the mean highest attacker-target probability found during optimization, while success on fresh validation calls rises from 1.8% to 3.5%. Exploratory analysis links these successes to small initial decision margins or greater attacker control over the observation. Together, these findings show that schema-defined outputs change but do not eliminate prompt-injection risk, highlighting the need to evaluate how untrusted content influences choices within the allowed action set.
Abstract:Most studies of prompt injection focus on generative agents, leaving their effects on models with schema-defined outputs unclear. We examine these effects in Jev, a non-generative decision model, using 510 reconstructed InjecAgent cases. Malicious content shifts action probabilities but rarely causes Jev to select the attacker's target. Override markers reduce this influence, while claims of contextual relatedness have small effects. Adaptive attacks using score feedback double the mean highest attacker-target probability found during optimization, while success on fresh validation calls rises from 1.8% to 3.5%. Exploratory analysis links these successes to small initial decision margins or greater attacker control over the observation. Together, these findings show that schema-defined outputs change but do not eliminate prompt-injection risk, highlighting the need to evaluate how untrusted content influences choices within the allowed action set.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.28613 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2609.28613v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.28613 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 229 words
Related coverage

Article: An Evolutionary Architecture Pattern for Managing AI’s Pace of Change
InfoQ · Jul 27, 2026

Friendly Fire: Hijacking Defensive Cyber AI Agents for Remote Code Execution
AI Now Institute · Jul 8, 2026

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Oct 16, 2026
Defending against Adaptive Prompt Injection Attacks via Reasoning-enabled Task Alignment
arXiv · Jun 16, 2026