Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates a context-aware framework for prompt-injection detection in web agents, suggesting improved security measures.
Large language model (LLM)-powered web agents combine privileged instructions with user requests, webpages, retrieved documents, tool outputs, memory, and conversation history, creating prompt-injection risks that static text classification may not capture. This study presents PromptSentinel-X, a leakage-aware and context-aware screening framework. The primary benchmark contained 1581 English records from the Prompt Injection Malignant dataset; 30,015 external prompt-injection, jailbreak, and benign hard-negative records were reserved for transfer and stress testing. The framework uses prompt-family-aware partitioning, trusted–untrusted context segmentation, calibrated risk prediction, robustness analysis, and deployment-oriented routing. On a 465-record group-aware test set, PromptSentinel-X achieved 0.9849 accuracy, 0.8887 macro-F1, 0.9851 attack recall, a 0.0050 benign false-positive rate, 0.9971 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), 0.9836 area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and 0.0153 expected calibration error. Random splitting produced a higher baseline macro-F1 but 144 leakage warnings. Context-aware macro-F1 declined from 0.8301 for static prompts to 0.6306 for multi-turn, 0.3844 for retrieval-augmented generation, and 0.3200 for memory scenarios. PromptSentinel-X is positioned as a calibrated screening and escalation component, not a stand-alone authorization mechanism. Broader tool, memory, multimodal browser, multilingual, and end-to-end agent studies remain necessary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leyla Zhuhadar (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: