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×.
arXiv:2606. 23989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: End-to-end large language models (LLMs) produce fluent multi-document summaries but remain prone to hallucination, and the attributions they offer are typically coarse (whole documents or passages) and generated post hoc, leaving each summary statement hard to verify.
arXiv:2607. 23804v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Context attribution methods for large language models (LLMs) identify which input context contributes to the model response.
arXiv:2405.02228v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate citation-backed responses, yet citation hallucination remains a major challenge for trustw...
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.
arXiv:2608. 03859v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) pose challenges to academic integrity and peer review.
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.
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...
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.
arXiv:2603. 05308v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification.
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.
arXiv:2606. 19819v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Decomposing compound sentences into atomic, verifiable claims is a prerequisite for reliable automated fact-checking.
arXiv:2605. 28510v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) for code completion and generation are increasingly used in software development, yet they may reproduce training examples verbatim and without authorship attribution, raising legal and ethical concerns around plagiarism and license compliance.