Tracing Target Answers in Poisoned Retrieval Corpora via Token Influence Attribution

Retrieval-augmented generation uses an external corpus as inference-time evidence, allowing an attacker to promote a false answer by injecting a handful of documents. Detection must distinguish this manipulation from ordinary relevance without knowing which queries or documents are targeted. Existing detectors use text irregularity, candidate consensus, or corpus-level graph structure, whose reliability varies with the attack and local context. We present RAGSieve, which constructs a reference matched to each detection scope. At query time, RAGSieve-Query (RSQ) compares generation candidates with the lower-ranked tail of the same retrieval, exposing answer-token concentration and carrier-payload seams. At corpus time, RAGSieve-Graph (RSG) compares each document's strongest semantic relations with its own neighborhood floor to measure coordinated density. Neither requires poison labels, a trusted corpus, or training. Across three QA datasets, three dense retrievers, and six poisoning constructions, RSQ reaches 95.2% AUROC and detects 82.2% of poison at a 5% clean-removal budget, against 81.1% and 52.5% for the strongest query-time baseline; RSG reaches 93.3% and 79.8% against 79.4% and 37.6% for the strongest corpus-time baseline, with a 79.6% versus 1.4% detection rate on camouflaged injections. Joint deployment cuts attack success from 67.4% to 16.1% while retaining unpoisoned-retrieval F1 at 41.0%, compared with 42.1% without filtering. Source code is available at https://github.com/XrazyMee/RAGSieve.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems ground large language models (LLMs) in external corpora, but this reliance exposes them to corpus poisoning: maliciously injected passages that manipulate retrieved evidence. We introduce RAGuard, a layered defense against \emph{factual} corpus-poisoning attacks on RAG pipelines. The first layer adversarially fine-tunes a dense retriever on synthetic poisoned documents (fabricated facts, contradictions, and reasoning traps), teaching it to downrank malicious passages before generation. The second layer, the Zero-Knowledge Inference Patch ZKIP, is a label-free, black-box filter: for each retrieved document, it performs a leave-one-out decode and scores the document by the semantic shift and output-entropy change that its removal induces. ZKIP requires no poison labels, no ground-truth answers, and no access to model internals; it compares the model's own answers under counterfactual contexts. On poisoned Natural Questions at 5--30% poison ratios, adversarial retriever training alone reduces but does not eliminate attack success, while ZKIP drives the measured attack success rate to 0.000 in every defended configuration, keeping Recall@5 within 0.03 of the clean-corpus baseline. Supervised analyses on both Natural Questions and BEIR (NFCorpus) confirm that the counterfactual signals ZKIP relies on carry learnable poison structure. The defense costs $k{+}1$ generator passes per query ($6\times$ for $k{=}5$); we analyze batching and early-stopping approximations that reduce this overhead. We also show that keyword-preserving poisons leave lexical retrievers such as BM25 essentially unaffected, an observation that delineates the boundary of the threat model. Code, datasets, and evaluation harnesses are released for reproducibility.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to corpus poisoning: an attacker who inserts a crafted document into the retrieval corpus can steer the underlying large language model (LLM) toward an attacker-chosen wrong answer. Prior single-document attacks typically avoid explicitly naming and refuting the correct answer inside the poisoned passage. In this paper, we examine a complementary design and propose \emph{DenialRAG}, a single-document poisoning attack that explicitly names the correct answer, denies it, and presents an attacker-controlled explanation for favoring the wrong answer. By placing both the correct answer and the corresponding poisoned answer inside the same retrieved passage, DenialRAG embeds the conflict directly into the context seen by the generator. We evaluate DenialRAG against four published single-document poisoning attacks across three open-domain question-answering datasets, eight target LLMs from four vendors, and five inference-time defenses. The results show that attack effectiveness is strongly model-dependent: DenialRAG achieves the highest attack success rate (ASR) on all three Mistral-7B datasets and remains effective on several other target LLMs, while other attacks dominate in some model regimes. Defense results show meaningful ASR reductions but non-uniform protection, with each defense leaving residual ASR in some settings. Component-level and cross-model analyses further identify the embedded denial as the most influential tested component and show that different poisoning mechanisms lose effectiveness at different rates across model groups. Together, these results show that RAG poisoning risk cannot be fully characterized by a single attack family or a single target model.