CiteShade: Citation Laundering in Multi-Source Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Its Counterfactual Defense
CiteShade attack makes RAG models cite trusted sources for attacker-chosen wrong answers, raising wrong-answer rate from 0.01 to 0.68.
CiteShade is presented as the first citation laundering attack against multi-source retrieval-augmented generation: an attacker controlling a single source induces a wrong answer falsely attributed to a trusted source, even while correct evidence remains in context. The attack is formalized via three necessary conditions (retrieval, generation, citation) constructible without any instructions, raising wrong-answer rate from 0.01 to 0.68 on multi-hop QA, with source deletion confirming the malicious source as causal driver. Vulnerability tracks a model's citation propensity rather than scale, reaching CLR 0.84 with explicit instruction and 0.64 without on the most citation-prone model. Perplexity filtering and citation-support checking prove insufficient; the authors propose a counterfactual defense verifying which source actually drove the answer.
- Single malicious source induces wrong answer falsely attributed to a trusted citation
- Wrong-answer rate rises from 0.01 to 0.68 on multi-source multi-hop QA
- Works without instructions; CLR up to 0.64 on most citation-prone model
- Perplexity filtering and citation-support checking fail; counterfactual defense proposed
From the original article
1 min read at arxiv.orgRetrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds a language model's answers on retrieved external knowledge and returns each answer with citations that identify its sources. Those citations are the user's audit trail: they let a reader verify a claim without trusting the model. Prior security work on RAG asks whether an attacker can corrupt the answer, leaving the citation channel unexplored.
By Guo Fuzheng · arxiv.org
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.