SoK: PIAtlas: Decomposing the Unbounded Prompt Injection Attack Space
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Prompt injection is the dominant security risk for large-language-model (LLM) applications and agents, yet the field still lacks a coherent map of how these attacks are constructed. More than twenty public datasets describe prompt injection using incompatible vocabularies, often organized around delivery vector, attacker goal, or generation method. In this Systematization of Knowledge, we present PIAtlas, a taxonomy organized instead around how the injected instruction is constructed to subvert the underlying model. Its six classes, one per subversion mechanism, form the roots of a hierarchy of techniques and sub-techniques that researchers can use to describe attacks consistently and design more systematic evaluations. We derive the taxonomy from how LLMs are trained, prompted, and influenced by human-like framing, and compare it with historical attack data. To ground this comparison, we release PICorpus, to our knowledge the largest license-clean collection of public prompt-injection datasets, and map thousands of its records to PIAtlas under a human-verified protocol. The mapping shows that attacks usually combine several techniques drawn from only a few mechanisms. It also reveals gaps that existing labels obscure: widely used agent benchmarks test only part of the attack space, and adaptive attackers favor mechanisms that curated benchmarks underrepresent. PIAtlas thus provides a common foundation for understanding this attack space, improving benchmark coverage, and guiding red teaming and defenses.
Results and benchmarks
Prompt injection is the dominant security risk for large-language-model (LLM) applications and agents, yet the field still lacks a coherent map of how these attacks are constructed.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction tuning | Lakera Gandalf / Mosscap | Templ. | 0 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Instruction tuning, Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Large Language Models, AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.