Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 cited by

Embedding-based classifiers can detect prompt injection attacks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.22284 v1 pith:MGOKLECJ submitted 2024-10-29 cs.CR cs.LG

classification cs.CRcs.LG
keywords classifiersattackspromptinjectionllmsmaliciousembedding-basedmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are seeing significant adoption in every type of organization due to their exceptional generative capabilities. However, LLMs are found to be vulnerable to various adversarial attacks, particularly prompt injection attacks, which trick them into producing harmful or inappropriate content. Adversaries execute such attacks by crafting malicious prompts to deceive the LLMs. In this paper, we propose a novel approach based on embedding-based Machine Learning (ML) classifiers to protect LLM-based applications against this severe threat. We leverage three commonly used embedding models to generate embeddings of malicious and benign prompts and utilize ML classifiers to predict whether an input prompt is malicious. Out of several traditional ML methods, we achieve the best performance with classifiers built using Random Forest and XGBoost. Our classifiers outperform state-of-the-art prompt injection classifiers available in open-source implementations, which use encoder-only neural networks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. From Neural Intent to Cryptographic Authorization: Securing AI-Driven Enterprise Workflows

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    NCS gates every privileged AI-agent tool call behind an offline-signed, hash-chained instruction stream, cutting injected-parameter attacks to zero by construction.

  2. Context Contamination in LLM Analysis of Network Security Logs: Poison with Passive Prompt Injection and Mitigation Evaluation

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Malicious text hidden in log fields hijacks LLM-based security analysis up to 88.2% of the time, and layered defenses reduce but do not eliminate the risk.

  3. Evaluating the Robustness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation to Adversarial Evidence in the Health Domain

    cs.IR 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Misleading health documents in RAG context sharply lower LLM accuracy, and heavily helpful-biased retrieval pools restore it.

  4. A Critical Evaluation of Defenses against Prompt Injection Attacks

    cs.CR 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    StruQ, SecAlign, Instruction Hierarchy, PromptGuard, and Attention Tracker are substantially less effective and utility-preserving than claimed when evaluated with diverse prompts and adaptive attacks.

  5. CASE-Bench: Context-Aware SafEty Benchmark for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark shows that human safety judgments about LLM responses shift strongly with context, and that current LLMs, especially commercial ones, often fail to match those judgments.

  6. Zero-Shot Embedding Drift Detection: A Lightweight Defense Against Prompt Injections in LLMs

    cs.CR 2026-01 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    An embedding-drift prompt injection detector that is not zero-shot, requires a clean reference prompt at inference, and fits its threshold on the test set, so the reported >93% accuracy is not evidence of deployed per...

  7. When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Review

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    GPT-5-mini gives weaker papers systematically higher scores than human reviewers, and hidden field-specific prompts in PDFs can force it to assign perfect scores or suppress weaknesses.

Pith tools