aiqbench analysis
TechPulse take: This research introduces PIDS-Bench, a critical benchmark that exposes how current prompt-injection detectors fail under distribution shifts, particularly when evaluating benign content from external sources. The study reveals a persistent "provenance-sensitive over-defense" issue where high aggregate F1 scores mask significant false positive rates on real-world public corpora, highlighting a gap between curated test data and operational reality. For developers building safety layers, this underscores the necessity of moving beyond single-metric optimization to address specific failure modes in out-of-distribution scenarios.
PIDS-Bench: Evaluating Prompt-Injection Detectors Under Over-Defense, Obfuscation, and Distribution Shift
arXiv:2609.15017v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Prompt-injection detectors are typically evaluated using aggregate F1 on in-distribution test data, which offers limited insight into behavior under distribution shift, particularly on the benign side of the decision boundary, where false positives impose direct operational cost yet are seldom measured. We present PIDS-Bench, a frozen multi-axis benchmark that jointly evaluates attack detection and benign false-positive behavior at fixed thresholds, spanning in-distribution inputs, hard-benign prompts that mimic injection structure without malicious intent, obfuscated attacks, and domain and structural distribution shifts. We evaluate seven detectors (learned baselines, external prompt-injection classifiers, and broad-safety comparators) alongside a rule-based lower-bound reference. Multi-axis evaluation exposes a failure mode that aggregate F1 conceals. A detector exceeding F1 = 0.98 on the held-out split still misclassifies roughly one-third of an externally-sourced benign subset drawn from public corpora and restricted to security-adjacent content. Across a full threshold sweep and five training seeds, no internal detector reaches an operating point satisfying F1 >= 0.95 and hard-benign FPR <= 0.10 together on this stress distribution. Decomposing by provenance, we find that hard-negative augmentation nearly eliminates over-defense on curated stress inputs but leaves it substantially intact on externally-sourced prompts, a pattern we term provenance-sensitive over-defense. The asymmetry holds across both fine-tuned architectures and does not diminish as the augmentation pool grows, with the externally-sourced FPR remaining far above the 0.10 target. Whether augmentation matched to the externally-sourced distribution would close this gap is untested; threshold calibration and curated-style augmentation alone do not.
Abstract:Prompt-injection detectors are typically evaluated using aggregate F1 on in-distribution test data, which offers limited insight into behavior under distribution shift, particularly on the benign side of the decision boundary, where false positives impose direct operational cost yet are seldom measured. We present PIDS-Bench, a frozen multi-axis benchmark that jointly evaluates attack detection and benign false-positive behavior at fixed thresholds, spanning in-distribution inputs, hard-benign prompts that mimic injection structure without malicious intent, obfuscated attacks, and domain and structural distribution shifts. We evaluate seven detectors (learned baselines, external prompt-injection classifiers, and broad-safety comparators) alongside a rule-based lower-bound reference. Multi-axis evaluation exposes a failure mode that aggregate F1 conceals. A detector exceeding F1 = 0.98 on the held-out split still misclassifies roughly one-third of an externally-sourced benign subset drawn from public corpora and restricted to security-adjacent content. Across a full threshold sweep and five training seeds, no internal detector reaches an operating point satisfying F1 >= 0.95 and hard-benign FPR <= 0.10 together on this stress distribution. Decomposing by provenance, we find that hard-negative augmentation nearly eliminates over-defense on curated stress inputs but leaves it substantially intact on externally-sourced prompts, a pattern we term provenance-sensitive over-defense. The asymmetry holds across both fine-tuned architectures and does not diminish as the augmentation pool grows, with the externally-sourced FPR remaining far above the 0.10 target. Whether augmentation matched to the externally-sourced distribution would close this gap is untested; threshold calibration and curated-style augmentation alone do not.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.15017 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2609.15017v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.15017 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
IEEE Access, vol. 14, pp. 134184-134205, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3728186 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
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 · 356 words
Related coverage
Passing the Test You Trained On: Re-evaluating Prompt-Injection Detectors for LLM Agents
arXiv · Oct 5, 2026
[AINews] Meta Connect 2026: Muse glasses, voice, video, and Charm
Latent Space · Sep 24, 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

What We Learned Trying to Catch AI Liars: An Aletheia's Quest Retrospective
EleutherAI · Aug 25, 2026