Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

When Context Bites: Detecting RAG Poisoning via Document-Level Attention Collapse

Yingtao Ren, Ziyi Zhao, Yiwei Fu, Xiao Luo, Yu-Cheng Chang +1 morePublished Aug 7, 2026
arXiv PDF DOI
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is indispensable for enhancing large language models. However, RAGs are increasingly susceptible to poisoning attacks, in which adversarial documents are injected to manipulate generator outputs. Previous methods rely on output-side signals such as perplexity and consistency checks to detect such attacks. Nevertheless, our analysis reveals that deliberate attacks often induce false confidence, where poisoned outputs exhibit even lower perplexity than benign ones, rendering uncertainty-based detection ineffective. To address this challenge, we explore the internal dynamics of the generator and identify a distinctive signature termed \textit{Attention Collapse}. Unlike the dispersed attention in benign generations, attacked generations exhibit a decrease in entropy as attention concentrates on poisoned documents. Building on these findings, we propose \texttt{D-SCAN} (Document-level Signal Collapse Analysis), a lightweight detection framework that monitors attention dynamics to identify attacked generations. Extensive experiments on multiple attack benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Moreover, D-SCAN can detect attacks even when they fail to alter the final answer. Code is available at https://github.com/yingtaoren/D-Scan.git.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is indispensable for enhancing large language models.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Oct 30, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Framework baselines

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

0

Citations

18

References

Tasks

Context (archaeology), Computer science, Poison control, Feature (linguistics), Psychology, attack detection, Physical Sciences

Methods

retrieval-augmented generation, attention collapse, attention entropy, large language models

Domains

Computer security, Artificial intelligence

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers