CiteVQA is a benchmark that evaluates multimodal large language models on both answering document questions and providing element‑level bounding‑box citations for the evidence used. It contains 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs in seven domains and two languages, with ground‑truth citations generated via an automated pipeline and strict quality control. The evaluation metric, Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), rewards a prediction only when both the answer and the cited region are correct, revealing widespread attribution hallucination in current models.
By Dongsheng Ma, Jiayu Li, Zhengren Wang, Yijie Wang, Jiahao Kong, Weijun Zeng, Jutao Xiao, Jie Yang, Bangrui Xu, Yuhan Wang, Bin Wang, Conghui He
arXiv:2509. 00761v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed for legal question answering, where evaluations typically focus on multiple-choice accuracy.
By Boqin Yuan, Ziqi Wang
arXiv:2609.10293v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the sou...
By Chen Qian, Yimeng Wang, Yu Chen, Lingfei Wu, Andreas Stathopoulos
arXiv:2606. 18385v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) remain prone to hallucinations, producing fluent but visually unfaithful outputs.
By Sneha Rao, Shaina Raza, Dhanesh Ramachandram
arXiv:2607. 05456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication.
By Ramsha Kamran, Maheera Amjad, Zartasha Mustansar, Arsalan Shaukat, Salma Sherbaz, Muhammad U. S. Khan
arXiv:2607. 18240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong fact-checking accuracy, yet forced binary decisions conceal a critical reliability problem: systems may issue confident verdicts even when supporting evidence is weak, sparse, or internally inconsistent.
By Dekun Yang
arXiv:2607. 29677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise workflows increasingly rely on agents for \emph{schema-guided extraction}: given a document and a user-defined schema, the agent faithfully follows the schema to produce the correct output with source evidence as grounding metadata.
By Boyang Zhang, Adrian Lyjak, Eli Stewart, Zhaoqi Li, Simon Suo
The paper introduces CAMS, a Claim‑Anchored Multi‑Document Summarization framework that decomposes source documents into atomic claims, resolves provenance deterministically from verbatim quotes to token spans, clusters equivalent claims across documents, and rewrites summaries so each sentence ends with claim identifiers linking back to source spans. CAMS separates provenance (an invariant for each emitted sentence) from faithfulness (an objective encouraged by selection, rewriting, and verification). Evaluations on MultiNews, DiverseSumm, and zero‑shot WCEP show that CAMS matches strong baselines in summary quality while improving faithfulness and citation precision, raising attribution accuracy from 38% to 64% and reducing human verification time per claim by 3.4×.
By Shuo Guan
arXiv:2607.18360v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: GPTZero found 53 NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers with hallucinated citations, and venues now screen submissions with automated reference checker...
By Kayoon Kim, Wieland Brendel, Patrik Reizinger
arXiv:2609.14248v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Faithful citation attribution begins with identifying the intended source for a scientific claim. We study this source-identification capability thro...
By Yee Man Choi, Xuehang Guo, Songcheng Cai, Yimu Wang, Yi R. Fung, Qingyun Wang
arXiv:2607. 20527v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLM systems such as OpenScholar and PaperQA2 read the scientific literature and return cited answers, and both they and their benchmarks already check whether those citations hold, with a fixed attribution model or human graders.
By Taewan Goo, Junsik Kim, Kyulhee Han, GwonYul Jo, Jong-Soo Kim, Tae-Hyung Kim
arXiv:2610.29812v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Literature-searching language agents are becoming a standard component of scientific assistants for the life sciences, yet there is little controlled...
By Mohammed Saqlain