mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the Geometric Limits of Transformer Defenses against Obfuscation Attacks: Latent Embedding Collapse & Performance Robustness Gap

arXiv 2605.19159 ↗First posted 18 May 2026cs.CRcited by 0

On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security

Abstract (arXiv)

Prompt injection attacks pose significant risks to language model safety, yet existing defenses are typically evaluated using classification performance. We show that high detection performance does not imply representational robustness. Specifically, multi-operator obfuscated prompts (combining homoglyphs, zero-width characters, and punctuation or emoji noise) can partially collapse onto the embedding manifold of clean prompts, a phenomenon we term latent embedding collapse. Results indicate that across multiple BERT family encoders with varying depth and capacity, detectors achieve near-perfect classification performance, yet the minimal clean-obfuscated margin delta = 1.02, indicating near-overlap of obfuscated and clean embeddings. Obfuscated embeddings further exhibit elevated intra-class variance (3.33 +/- 6.23), indicating severe latent-space instability despite high performance. These results reveal a substantial perf ormance-robustness gap, demonstrating that standard evaluation metrics fail to capture latent embedding collapse and underlying geometric fragility. Our findings show that increasing model capacity does not eliminate latent embedding collapse, motivating geometry-aware robustness analysis as a necessary complement to performance-based evaluation for prompt-injection defenses.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 12 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 May 2026.

Builds on

12 of 21 references.

Closest ancestors · 11

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Defending Against Prompt Injection with DataFilter22 Oct
  2. 2025ChatInject: Abusing Chat Templates for Prompt Injection in LLM Agents26 Sep
  3. 2025Defending Against Prompt Injection With a Few DefensiveTokens10 Jul
  4. 2025A Critical Evaluation of Defenses against Prompt Injection Attacks23 May
  5. 2024Attention Tracker: Detecting Prompt Injection Attacks in LLMs1 Nov
  6. 2024Fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs): Improved Prompt Injection Attacks Detection28 Oct
  7. 2024Prompt Infection: LLM-to-LLM Prompt Injection within Multi-Agent Systems9 Oct
  8. 2024Optimization-based Prompt Injection Attack to LLM-as-a-Judge26 Mar
  9. 2023Jatmo: Prompt Injection Defense by Task-Specific Finetuning29 Dec
  10. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applications8 Jun
  11. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection23 Feb

Other references · 1

  1. 2025UniGuardian: A Unified Defense for Detecting Prompt Injection, Backdoor Attacks and Adversarial Attacks in Large Language Modelscited by 16

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Soft Prompt Threats: Attacking Safety Alignment and Unlearning in Open-Source LLMs through the Embedding Space
  2. 2025Embedding Poisoning: Bypassing Safety Alignment via Embedding Semantic Shift
  3. 2026Zero-Shot Embedding Drift Detection: A Lightweight Defense Against Prompt Injections in LLMs
  4. 2024Automatic and Universal Prompt Injection Attacks against Large Language Models
  5. 2026AttackEval: A Systematic Empirical Study of Prompt Injection Attack Effectiveness Against Large Language Models
  6. 2026DeepSeek Robustness Against Semantic-Character Dual-Space Mutated Prompt Injection
  7. 2025OET: Optimization-based prompt injection Evaluation Toolkit
  8. 2026One Attack to Fool Them All: Highly Transferable Black-Box Adversarial Attacks on Frontier MLLMs