The paper introduces attribution gradients, a method to enhance AI-generated answers by consolidating evidence counts, supporting or contradicting excerpts, source links, and contextual explanations into a single view. It also enables the unraveling of second‑degree citations directly within the answer. A lab study shows that using the full gradient improves readers’ critical engagement and deepens their understanding compared to standard citation and document QA designs.
arXiv:2603.16138v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Generative search systems are increasingly replacing link-based retrieval with AI-generated summaries, yet little is known about how these sy...
arXiv:2606. 26449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented systems routinely present citations alongside generated answers, yet a citation does not confirm that the corresponding source meaningfully shaped the output.
DeepWeaver is a framework designed to improve open‑ended question answering by weaving noisy retrieved evidence into comprehensive, well‑cited answers. It introduces Thought Block Chains (TBCs) that organize claims, key information, and supporting evidence, and uses subordinate TBCs to refine and expand the evidence before final generation. Evaluations on LoQA and DeepResearch Bench show that DeepWeaver enhances content sufficiency, citation grounding, and detail preservation across multiple LLMs.
DeepWeaver addresses the evidence synthesis gap in open‑ended question answering by weaving noisy retrieved evidence into comprehensive answers. It introduces Thought Block Chains (TBCs) that organize claims, key information, and citations, allowing the system to revise and expand evidence before final generation. Evaluations on LoQA and DeepResearch Bench show improved content sufficiency, citation grounding, and detail preservation across multiple LLMs.
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.
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...
arXiv:2506.17585v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models can answer questions correctly and still hallucinate their citations. Most citation systems address this by retrieving docume...
arXiv:2607. 01420v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As grounded QA systems are increasingly deployed in AI assistants, accurately attributing generated answers to evidence is critical for user trust and model safety.
Retrieval-augmented generation systems for legal question answering typically retrieve passages based on semantic similarity and provide them to a language model, which then generates cited answers. Prior work assumes that highly ranked passages are most likely to be usefully cited by the model.
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.
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.
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.