DenialRAG: Single-Document RAG Poisoning via Embedded Parametric Denial

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 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) grounds a language model in retrieved documents, which reduces hallucination but creates a new attack surface: if retrieved text is tampered with, the model may repeat the falsehood. We study how much a small quantized model, Llama 3.1 8B, degrades when a fraction of its retrieved context is poisoned. Three corruption strategies are tested, entity swap, number swap, and negation, each applied to zero, one, two, or three of the three retrieved passages, over a factorial sweep of 588 runs on a fact-checking task built from FEVER. Accuracy falls from 77.9% on clean context to 43.5% when all three passages are corrupted. Entity swap flips the largest share of answers that were correct on clean context. Number-based corruption stays flat while poisoned passages are a minority and jumps once they form a majority, a pattern we re-check with query-level bootstrap intervals. The model rarely invents new falsehoods; its dominant reaction is to abstain, and a lexical overlap proxy of unsupported generation falls under attack rather than rising. The study is a small-scale measurement with coarse automated labels; we treat the strategy contrasts as suggestive until decoding is controlled and stronger adjudication is in place.