aiqbench analysis
This research addresses the high false-positive rate of linear probes used to detect indirect prompt injections by incorporating matched negative examples into training data. The study demonstrates that this simple adjustment significantly reduces alarms on benign conversations while maintaining strong detection capabilities across multiple open models. Ultimately, it highlights how probe performance is heavily dependent on training distribution rather than just model architecture or hidden state analysis alone.
Prompt-Injection Probes Learn the Conversation, Not Just the Injection
arXiv:2610.18408v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Linear probes on a model's hidden states are used as cheap monitors for indirect prompt injection: they screen the tool outputs an agent reads and send suspicious ones to a slower second check, so every false alarm has a cost. But a probe learns whatever separates its training examples. The standard evaluation of injection probes can be passed without the model: conversation position and text lengths alone reach 0.91-0.98 AUROC. When each attack is compared with the same conversation without the injection, or with harmless text formatted like an injection, standard probes flag most of these harmless cases. We add such cases to the training data as matched negatives. Across six open models, in applications seen during training and at the default threshold, changing only the training data cuts false alarms on injection-free conversations from 41-80% to 4-27%, and on harmless look-alikes from 92-98% to 3-16%. With a threshold set on normal traffic, our probe still catches a median 95% of the attacks that fooled the agent (91% without our data). In new applications, false alarms stay low, but detection depends on the model and on how the threshold is set. The same data also helps a text-only filter.
Abstract:Linear probes on a model's hidden states are used as cheap monitors for indirect prompt injection: they screen the tool outputs an agent reads and send suspicious ones to a slower second check, so every false alarm has a cost. But a probe learns whatever separates its training examples. The standard evaluation of injection probes can be passed without the model: conversation position and text lengths alone reach 0.91-0.98 AUROC. When each attack is compared with the same conversation without the injection, or with harmless text formatted like an injection, standard probes flag most of these harmless cases. We add such cases to the training data as matched negatives. Across six open models, in applications seen during training and at the default threshold, changing only the training data cuts false alarms on injection-free conversations from 41-80% to 4-27%, and on harmless look-alikes from 92-98% to 3-16%. With a threshold set on normal traffic, our probe still catches a median 95% of the attacks that fooled the agent (91% without our data). In new applications, false alarms stay low, but detection depends on the model and on how the threshold is set. The same data also helps a text-only filter.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.18408 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.18408v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.18408 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 · 294 words
Related coverage
Some Intuitions on Steering Vectors
LessWrong · Sep 29, 2026

Auditor-in-a-Box: Tools for Third-Party Auditing
LessWrong · Jul 28, 2026

Claude Code’s Next Era — Thariq Shihipar, Anthropic
Latent Space · Sep 29, 2026
Building and evaluating model diffing agents
AI Alignment Forum · Jun 12, 2026