Worse than Zero-shot? A Fact-Checking Dataset for Evaluating the Robustness of RAG Against Misleading Retrievals

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has shown impressive capabilities in mitigating hallucinations in large language models (LLMs). However, LLMs struggle to maintain consistent reasoning when exposed to misleading or conflicting evidence, especially in real-world domains such as politics, where information is polarized or selectively framed. Mainstream RAG benchmarks evaluate models under clean retrieval settings, where systems generate answers from gold-standard documents, or under synthetically perturbed settings, where documents are artificially injected with noise. These assumptions fail to reflect real-world conditions, often leading to an overestimation of RAG system performance. To address this gap, we introduce \textsc{RAGuard}, the first benchmark to evaluate the robustness of RAG systems against \textit{misleading} retrievals. Unlike prior benchmarks that rely on synthetic noise, our fact-checking dataset captures naturally occurring misinformation by constructing its retrieval corpus from Reddit discussions. It categorizes retrieved evidence into three types: \textit{supporting}, \textit{misleading}, and \textit{unrelated}, providing a realistic and challenging testbed for assessing how well RAG systems navigate different types of evidence. Our experiments reveal that, when exposed to potentially misleading retrievals, all tested LLM-powered RAG systems perform worse than their zero-shot baselines (i.e., no retrieval at all), while human annotators consistently perform better, highlighting LLMs' susceptibility to noisy environments. To our knowledge, \textsc{RAGuard} is the first benchmark to systematically assess the robustness of the RAG against misleading evidence.We expect this benchmark to drive future research toward improving RAG systems beyond idealized datasets, making them more reliable for real-world applications.