Adversarial Hubness Detector: Detecting Hubness Poisoning in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves the factuality of large language models by grounding responses in external documents, but it also exposes a critical security vulnerability: adversarial documents injected into the knowledge database can enter the context window and steer the model toward targeted incorrect answers. Existing post-retrieval defenses rely on instruction following, parametric knowledge, or text-level consistency, all of which can be imitated or optimized against by adaptive attackers. We propose RAGSentinel, a training-free, label-free defense for black-box RAG systems. RAGSentinel uses a surrogate encoder to measure query-conditioned hidden-state shifts induced by retrieved documents, removes shared topic directions, and filters poisoned documents as geometric outliers from a robust majority consensus. We prove that, under an honest-majority assumption and a representation-level separation condition, RAGSentinel exactly recovers a poison-free majority-sized context. Experiments across three question-answering datasets, three LLM families, and multiple poisoning attacks show that RAGSentinel consistently achieves low attack success rates while preserving competitive accuracy and remaining effective against adaptive attacks with full pipeline knowledge.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to knowledge base poisoning, yet existing attacks have been evaluated almost exclusively against vanilla retrieve-then-generate pipelines. Architectures designed to handle conflicting retrieved information - multi-agent debate, agentic retrieval, recursive language models - remain untested against adversarially optimized contradictions. We evaluate four RAG architectures (vanilla RAG, agentic RAG, MADAM-RAG, and Recursive Language Models) under controlled single-document (N=1) poisoning on 921 Natural Questions QA pairs, comparing a clean baseline, naive injection, and CorruptRAG-AK - an adversarial attack whose meta-epistemic framing targets credibility assessment. Architecture is a high-impact variable in adversarial robustness: under CorruptRAG-AK, attack success rates range from 81.9% (vanilla) to 24.4% (RLM) - a spread of nearly 58 percentage points across architectures with comparable clean accuracy (~92%). Decomposing this gap, once the poisoned document is retrieved, adversarial framing - not retrieval optimization - drives the majority of CorruptRAG-AK's advantage for three of four architectures, localizing the cross-architecture vulnerability at the content-reasoning stage. Our MADAM-RAG reimplementation shows the highest apparent contradiction detection rate, though our LLM judge over-identifies this behavior (~48.5% precision), so reported rates are upper bounds. Regardless of detection, MADAM-RAG cannot resolve contradictions reliably, producing a 41.4% non-answer rate even on clean inputs - though implementation divergences from the original may contribute. We introduce a seven-category behavioral taxonomy capturing contradiction detection, hedging, and failure modes beyond binary accuracy. Code, data, and analysis notebooks are publicly available.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances large language models by grounding outputs in external knowledge, improving factuality and reducing hallucinations. At the same time, the retrieval-augmented pipeline introduces new robustness and security risks, including corpus poisoning, backdoor attacks, privacy leakage, and fairness violations. Despite rapid progress in this area, existing surveys remain limited in their treatment of attacker objectives, threat models, and stage-specific defenses across the full RAG pipeline. This survey presents a unified and pipeline-aware overview of RAG robustness. We formalize threat models over the corpus, retriever, and generator, and organize attacks into three main objectives: accuracy, privacy, and fairness. We further review defenses from a pipeline-aware perspective, covering the retrieval, rerank, generation, and traceback stages. In addition, we summarize robustness benchmarks and explainability methods for more deeply evaluating and explaining RAG robustness.