Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

RAGSieve: Self-Referenced Local Contrast for Knowledge-Poison Detection in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Xinlong Xu, Yoshua Y. Li

Published

Aug 13, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Aug 13, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Retrieval-augmented generation treats an external corpus as inference evidence, allowing injected documents to promote attacker-chosen claims. Existing detectors depend on trusted references, specific attack artifacts, or global thresholds sensitive to corpus topology. We present RAGSieve, a self-referenced detection framework that constructs its reference from the inspected system. RAGSieve-Query (RSQ) performs query-local contrast, scoring top-five candidates against ranks 6-20 of the same retrieval to detect answer-anchor concentration and carrier transitions. RAGSieve-Graph (RSG) performs corpus-local contrast, comparing each document's semantically similar but lexically distinct neighbors with its local baseline to detect coordinated density before queries arrive. Across three QA datasets and six poisoning constructions, RSQ achieves 95.2% AUROC and detects 82.2% of poison at 5% clean-document removal, versus 81.1%/52.5% for GMTP. RSG achieves 93.3%/79.8%, versus 79.4%/37.6% for CleanBase. Joint deployment reduces attack success from 67.4% to 14.0% while retaining 41.3% F1 on unpoisoned retrieval, demonstrating practical protection at both corpus ingestion and query time without poison labels or trusted corpora. Source code is available at https://github.com/XrazyMee/RAGSieve.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Retrieval-augmented generation treats an external corpus as inference evidence, allowing injected documents to promote attacker-chosen claims."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Retrieval-augmented generation treats an external corpus as inference evidence, allowing injected documents to promote attacker-chosen claims."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Retrieval-augmented generation treats an external corpus as inference evidence, allowing injected documents to promote attacker-chosen claims."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Retrieval-augmented generation treats an external corpus as inference evidence, allowing injected documents to promote attacker-chosen claims."

Reported Metrics

partial

F1, Auroc

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Across three QA datasets and six poisoning constructions, RSQ achieves 95.2% AUROC and detects 82.2% of poison at 5% clean-document removal, versus 81.1%/52.5% for GMTP."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

f1auroc
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
Coding
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Retrieval-augmented generation treats an external corpus as inference evidence, allowing injected documents to promote attacker-chosen claims.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Retrieval-augmented generation treats an external corpus as inference evidence, allowing injected documents to promote attacker-chosen claims.
  • Existing detectors depend on trusted references, specific attack artifacts, or global thresholds sensitive to corpus topology.
  • We present RAGSieve, a self-referenced detection framework that constructs its reference from the inspected system.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

F1

Contribution summary

  • We present RAGSieve, a self-referenced detection framework that constructs its reference from the inspected system.
  • Across three QA datasets and six poisoning constructions, RSQ achieves 95.2% AUROC and detects 82.2% of poison at 5% clean-document removal, versus 81.1%/52.5% for GMTP.
  • RSG achieves 93.3%/79.8%, versus 79.4%/37.6% for CleanBase.

Why it matters for eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1, auroc