arXiv:2607.17535cs.CRcs.CL2026-07

攻击者通过调整事实位置和表达方式,让真实信息误导大模型推理,且现有防御无效。

Salience Induction against Multi-Hop RAG Agents: Threat and Defense

论文配图:Salience Induction against Multi-Hop RAG Agents: Threat and Defense
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 利用事实位置、强调方式等非内容修改诱导多跳推理错误
  • 30%编辑预算下攻击成功率83.3%,现有防御仍留75.7%漏洞
  • 提出轻量级输入侧防御,可将成功率降至15.3%以下

代理增强型生成系统在知识密集型任务中日益依赖外部证据与工具协同。在多跳问答中,代理需串联跨文档事实。现有防御集中于内容投毒(注入虚假事实)和提示注入(嵌入指令)。我们识别出第三类攻击面:显著性通道,即通过事实位置、强调、表述框架和语义邻近性,在所有检索内容为真且无指令的情况下,仍可引导推理方向。我们形式化了显著性诱导——保持检索痕迹语义完整但改变多跳属性绑定的保真修改。定义六类显著性编辑操作符,并构建符合事实与隐蔽性约束的迭代提议-验证流水线。引入标注有诱饵的多跳基准数据集SalientWiki-MH。在五个前沿模型族(GPT、Claude、Gemini、DeepSeek、Qwen)和三种代理架构(ReAct、Reflexion、tool-calling)上评估,结果展现广泛泛化性。30%编辑预算下,显著性诱导攻击成功率达83.3%;最强基线防御后仍有75.7%攻击成功率。非目标重写仅通过降低中性任务成功率缓解攻击。提出的轻量级输入侧防御「显著性归一化」在标准攻击下将成功率降至15.3%,自适应攻击下为23.6%。结果表明,真实性保障与指令过滤不足以防御,抗显著性干扰是鲁棒代理式RAG的关键。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems increasingly retrieve external evidence and orchestrate tools for knowledge-intensive applications. In Multi-Hop question answering, agents chain facts across documents. Existing defenses focus on content poisoning, which injects false facts, and prompt injection, which embeds directives. We identify a third attack surface: the salience channel, through which fact position, emphasis, framing, and semantic proximity can redirect reasoning even when all retrieved claims are true and no instructions are present. We formalize Salience Induction as truth-preserving edits that redirect Multi-Hop attribute binding while leaving the retrieval trace semantically intact. We define six Salience-Editing operator classes and build an iterative proposer-verifier pipeline under factual and stealth constraints. We also introduce SalientWiki-MH, a decoy-annotated Multi-Hop benchmark. Evaluations across five frontier model families (GPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Qwen) and three agent architectures (ReAct, Reflexion, and tool-calling) show broad generalization. Under a 30% edit budget, Salience Induction achieves an 83.3% attack success rate; the strongest evaluated baseline defense leaves 75.7% post-defense ASR. Untargeted rewriting further reduces attacks only by degrading neutral task success. Our lightweight input-side defense, Salience Normalization, reduces attack success to 15.3% under standard attacks and 23.6% under an adaptive attack. These results show that truthfulness and instruction filtering alone are insufficient: robust agentic RAG also requires defenses against salience-relevance decoupling.

多跳推理安全攻防RAG防御

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。