The RAG Paradox: A Black-Box Attack Exploiting Unintentional Vulnerabilities in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growing adoption of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems, various attack methods have been proposed to degrade their performance. However, most existing approaches rely on unrealistic assumptions in which external attackers have access to internal components such as the retriever. To address this issue, we introduce a realistic black-box attack based on the RAG paradox, a structural vulnerability that emerges from the system’s effort to enhance trust by revealing both the retrieved documents and their sources to users. This transparency enables attackers to observe which sources are used and how information is phrased, allowing them to craft poisoned documents that are more likely to be retrieved and upload them to the identified sources. Moreover, as RAG systems directly provide retrieved content to users, these documents must not only be retrievable but also appear natural and credible to prevent users from questioning the search results. Unlike prior work that focuses solely on improving document retrievability, our attack method explicitly considers both retrievability and user trust in the retrieved content. Through extensive offline and online experiments, we demonstrate that our method significantly degrades system performance without internal access, while generating natural-looking poisoned documents.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".