arXiv preprint ·

Language Models Show Conformity Bias in RAG: When the Majority Endorses a Poisoned Claim

Mehrdad Ghassabi, Audrina Ebrahimi, Zahra Zojaji and Amin Milani Fard

Published
Source
arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
Original
Read it at arXiv
Topics
Computation & Language / NLP

Abstract

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can expose language models to misleading evidence in retrieved documents. We investigate whether increasing the number of mutually agreeing poisoned documents affects a model's ability to detect misinformation. We evaluate 200 randomly selected questions from SciFact (random seed 38), comparing contexts with one poisoned and six healthy documents against contexts with six mutually agreeing poisoned documents and one healthy document. For Gemma-3-12b, poison-detection rates decrease from 25% (50/200) in the minority condition to 10% (20/200) in the majority condition. Among the 38 questions with different outcomes across conditions, 34 change from detected to undetected, while only four change in the opposite direction (exact McNemar test, p = 6.04e-7). This pattern is consistent with a conformity-like response to a majority of mutually agreeing poisoned documents. Our results provide initial evidence of conformity bias in RAG-based misinformation detection: Gemma-3-12b is substantially less likely to detect poisoned claims when they dominate the retrieved evidence.

The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.

Read it on ReadSearch

Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.

Already a reader? Sign in

All new papers in Computation & Language / NLP

Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.

ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.

Papers belong to their authors and publishers; every page here links to the original. All research topics