Prompt-injection defenses are commonly evaluated as binary detectors, although deployed LLM applications must make operational decisions about whether to allow, block, or escalate potentially malicious inputs. Recent probabilistic decision models aim to support such decisions through calibrated confidence estimates, but their reliability under distribution shift remains uncertain. We evaluate a native probabilistic decision model (Jev), two Llama Prompt Guard 2 classifiers (22M and 86M), and an LLM-based judge on 47,611 held-out examples spanning direct and indirect prompt injections, hard-benign inputs, obfuscation, and distribution shift. Using separate development and calibration splits, we assess detection performance, probability calibration, and allow-block-defer policies under a frozen evaluation protocol. The LLM judge achieves the highest overall discrimination (AUROC 0.897), followed by Jev (0.871), Prompt Guard 2 86M (0.757), and Prompt Guard 2 22M (0.714). However, Jev's native probabilities do not consistently outperform post-hoc calibrated classifier scores, and temperature scaling improves calibration without improving discrimination. At an empirical false-negative-rate target of 1%, all evaluated gate-reviewer systems require more than 91.8% escalation and incur substantial false-positive rates. These findings demonstrate that probabilistic outputs alone do not establish reliable security decisions under distribution shift. Effective LLM security systems must jointly evaluate detection, calibration, reviewer behavior, and operational decision policies.

翻译：暂无翻译