Illusions of Relevance: Arbitrary Content Injection Attacks Deceive Retrievers, Rerankers, and LLM Judges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work considers a black-box threat model in which adversaries attempt to propagate arbitrary non-relevant content in search. We show that retrievers, rerankers, and LLM relevance judges are all highly vulnerable to attacks that enable arbitrary content to be promoted to the top of search results and to be assigned perfect relevance scores. We investigate how attackers may achieve this via content injection, injecting arbitrary sentences into relevant passages or query terms into arbitrary passages. Our study analyzes how factors such as model class and size, the balance between relevant and non-relevant content, injection location, toxicity and severity of injected content, and the role of LLM-generated content influence attack success, yielding novel, concerning, and often counterintuitive results. Our results reveal a weakness in embedding models, LLM-based scoring models, and generative LLMs, raising concerns about the general robustness, safety, and trustworthiness of language models regardless of the type of model or the role in which they are employed. We also emphasize the challenges of robust defenses against these attacks. Classifiers and more carefully prompted LLM judges often fail to recognize passages with content injection, especially when considering diverse text topics and styles. Our findings highlight the need for further research into arbitrary content injection attacks. We release our code for further study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".