[Submitted on 29 Oct 2026]
Title:Language Models Show Conformity Bias in RAG: When the Majority Endorses a Poisoned Claim
View a PDF of the paper titled Language Models Show Conformity Bias in RAG: When the Majority Endorses a Poisoned Claim, by Mehrdad Ghassabi and 3 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
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.
Subjects:
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.41012 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.41012v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.41012
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Mehrdad Ghassabi [view email] [v1] Thu, 29 Oct 2026 21:45:09 UTC (22 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled Language Models Show Conformity Bias in RAG: When the Majority Endorses a Poisoned Claim, by Mehrdad Ghassabi and 3 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
TeX Source
view license
Additional Features
Audio Summary
Current browse context:
cs.CL
new | recent | 2026-10
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
SciX
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Loading...
Data provided by:
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)