arXiv:2603. 08924v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI-powered answer engines are inherently non-deterministic: identical queries submitted at different times can produce different responses and cite different sources.
By Ronald Sielinski
arXiv:2608. 16645v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Can a language model recover the true research idea of a published paper when given only that paper's pre-publication bibliography?
By Shaolong Chen, Yanlin Fei, Nazhou Liu, Xinmiao Yu, Lei Li, Rahul Thapa, Madalina Ciobanu, Qingqing Mao, Ritankar Das
arXiv:2608.21376v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Many NLP tasks require systems to provide attribution in their outputs--i.e. citations to grounding sources. Attribution serves as a bulwark against...
By Yu Hou, Hal Daum\'e III, Rachel Rudinger, William Walden
arXiv:2609.01432v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentionin...
By Yixuan Liu, Lin Chen, Zhuoqi Liu, Jianglin Lu, Dakota Murray
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 investigates how the granularity of citations—sentence, paragraph, or document level—affects the performance of large language models in attributed generation tasks. Across models ranging from 8B to 120B parameters, enforcing fine‑grained, sentence‑level citations consistently reduces performance, with median losses of 40% and up to 338% on specific tasks, while overall answer correctness remains largely unchanged. The study finds that attribution quality peaks at intermediate, paragraph‑level granularity, suggesting that overly fine citations break semantic dependencies and overly coarse ones add noise, and that the optimal granularity depends on model scale and the amount of evidence required.
whyItMatters":"The findings reveal that the conventional preference for fine‑grained citations can actually harm model performance, indicating that attribution standards should be tailored to the model’s semantic scope rather than fixed by convention."
By Hexuan Wang, Jingyu Zhang, Benjamin Van Durme, Daniel Khashabi