AtomCite is an agentic framework that verifies and corrects page‑level citations in multi‑page documents by parsing answers into claims, checking each claim against the cited page image, and applying a deterministic repair policy. The authors introduce DocCite, the first benchmark for this task, built on MP‑DocVQA and DUDE, containing 928 injected instances and 1,909 verified natural errors. Across Gemini, Claude, and GPT models, AtomCite achieves about 93% verification accuracy and improves citation precision from 34% to 87‑90%, while also enhancing hallucination detection in open‑source models.
By Chen Qian, Yimeng Wang, Yu Chen, Lingfei Wu, Andreas Stathopoulos
arXiv:2606. 09500v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Objective.
By Yoojin Nam, Jinhoon Jeong, Namkug Kim
arXiv:2607. 22706v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper presents the MPR-CiteG framework, which achieved second place in the ScienceON AI Challenge by addressing two fundamental challenges in generative AI: inefficient retrieval and the absence of source verification.
By Hyewon Lee, Minkyung Song, Junghyun Oh, Seunghoon Han, Sungsu Lim
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
The paper introduces a verification‑centric framework and benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as assistants in peer review, focusing on error detection rather than imitation of human reviews. It presents a scalable benchmark that injects synthetic errors into conference papers to test LLMs’ ability to spot logical contradictions, and proposes a Multi‑Layered Review (MLR) framework that emphasizes deep manuscript comprehension before generating reviews. Experiments show the approach aligns well with human review scores, excels at error detection, and offers complementary reviewer insights, while also revealing vulnerabilities to adversarial manipulation.
By Rachel S. Y. Teo, Yutaro Yamada, Shashank Kotyan, Yuki Imajuku, Tarin Clanuwat
arXiv:2606. 28358v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) aims to enhance the trustworthiness of Large Language Models (LLMs) by grounding their outputs in external documents, often using inline citations for verifiability.
By Ian van Dort (University of Amsterdam), Maria Heuss (University of Amsterdam)
arXiv:2605.29522v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: As scientific literature grows rapidly and research increasingly involves AI agents, automated survey generation has become a key capability for bo...
By Ziyue Yang, Da Ma, Hanqi Li, Zijian Wang, Tiancheng Huang, Zijian Hu, Chenrun Wang, Yunzhe Zhang, Xiaobao Wu, Kai Yu, Lu Chen
arXiv:2609.22537v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Enterprise AI assistants must produce responses that are verifiable and traceable to source evidence. However, retrieval augmented generation (RAG) ove...
By Anubha Kabra, Katie Jooyoung Kim, Colin Zhiwei Kou, Helene Sajer, Yimei Fan, Radomir Cisar, Heather Greenhalgh, Gabriel Martinez Vidiri
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
The paper introduces REASONS, a benchmark of 12,723 sentence-level citation instances across 12 arXiv subject categories, to evaluate scientific citation attribution under different evidence conditions. It proposes a dual-metric framework—Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR)—to balance reliability and responsiveness. Experiments with proprietary and open-source LLMs across various prompting and retrieval settings show that advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces hallucinations but increases abstention, while adversarial metadata can push hallucination rates above 85%. Human evaluation confirms a high ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases, underscoring the need for systems that can appropriately abstain under uncertainty.
By Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Seyedali Mohammadi, Ankur Padia, Edward Raff, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, Manas Gaur
The paper introduces REASONS, a benchmark comprising 12,723 sentence-level citation instances across 12 arXiv subject categories, to evaluate scientific citation attribution by large language models. It proposes a dual-metric framework—Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR)—to assess the trade-off between reliability and responsiveness. Experiments on proprietary and open-source LLMs under various prompting and retrieval settings show that advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces hallucinations but may increase abstention, while retrieval-augmented variants often maintain near-zero abstention. Human evaluation reveals a high ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases, underscoring the need for systems that can appropriately abstain under uncertainty.
By Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Seyedali Mohammadi, Ankur Padia, Edward Raff, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, Manas Gaur
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