RAGShield: Detecting Numerical Claim Manipulation in Government RAG Systems
Open accessAbstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are deployed across federal agencies for citizen-facing tax guidance, benefits eligibility, and legal information, where a single incorrect number causes direct financial harm. This paper proves that all embedding-based RAG defenses share a fundamental blind spot: changing a tax deduction by $50,000 produces cosine similarity 0.9998, invisible to every known detection threshold. Across 174 manipulation pairs and two embedding models, the mean sensitivity gap is 1,459x. The blind spot is confirmed on real IRS documents.The root cause is that embeddings encode topic, not numerical precision. RAGShield sidesteps this by operating on extracted values directly: a pattern-based engine identifies dollar amounts and percentages in government text, links each value to its governing entity through two-pass context propagation (99.8% entity detection on 2,742 real IRS passages), and verifies every claim against a cross-source registry built from the corpus itself. A temporal tracker flags value changes that fall outside known government update schedules. On 430 attacks generated from real IRS document content, RAGShield detects every one (0.0% ASR, 95% CI [0%, 1%]) while embedding-based defenses miss 79-90% of the same attacks.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This work addresses the delegation chain layer of the government AI security stack, complementing CivicShield for conversational interfaces and RAGShield for knowledge pipelines.
“This work addresses the delegation chain layer of the government AI security stack, complementing CivicShield for conversational interfaces and RAGShield for knowledge pipelines.”
From SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey of Secure Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Xu, Y., Zhang, M., Ge, Z., Li, H., Hu, N., Zhang, J. C., Wen, Z., Zhang, J. C., Li, Q., & Chen, L. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.08304 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems
Patil, K. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.02767
Self-citationRAGtrap: Source Revocation and Indexed Provenance Lookup for Poisoned RAG Corpora
Kapelinski, C., & Kreutz, D. (2026) · Simpósio Brasileiro de Cibersegurança (SBSeg) · doi:10.5753/sbseg_estendido.2026.29850
- Authors
- Patil, K.
- Corresponding author
- Patil, KrishnaSaiReddy
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2604.00387
- OpenAlex
- W7148525494
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Keywords
- retrieval-augmented generation, tax guidance, value extraction, entity detection, temporal tracking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review