This work proposes CAGE (Cognitive Attribution Graphs for Citation Generation), a two-stage framework that introduces an explicit cognitive attribution map before answer generation, and demonstrates the effectiveness of attribution-space contraction and map-guided citation generation.
Abstract
Long-form question answering increasingly relies on retrieved evidence to make LLM outputs verifiable, with inline citations tracing claims to source documents. However, existing systems often attach citations that are topically related but insufficient to support their claims. We identify attribution ambiguity as a structural challenge: end-to-end generation must implicitly resolve combinatorial claim--document assignments, obscuring evidential boundaries and increasing the risk of evidence-boundary overrun, where claims exceed cited support. To address this challenge, we propose CAGE (Cognitive Attribution Graphs for Citation Generation), a two-stage framework that introduces an explicit cognitive attribution map before answer generation. CAGE first trains a plug-and-play Cognitive Map Induction Model to construct answer-centered support subgraphs, aligning each semantic answer unit with supporting documents through explicit relations. A Structured Citation Reasoning Model then realizes these units as sentence-level claims with map-aligned citations. Experiments on ASQA, ELI5, and ExpertQA show that CAGE achieves state-of-the-art performance, demonstrating the effectiveness of attribution-space contraction and map-guided citation generation.
Large language models answering questions over multi-page documents are expected to cite the supporting pages, yet supplied citations are sometimes inaccurate, and current evaluations score citations at generation time or against text passages: no existing benchmark evaluates whether a system can verify and correct a page-level citation already attached to an answer. We propose AtomCite, an agentic framework that parses an answer into claims, checks each claim against the image of its cited page, and applies a deterministic repair policy. To evaluate it, we introduce DocCite, to our knowledge the first benchmark for systems that verify and correct page-level citations in document images. Built on MP-DocVQA and DUDE, it combines 928 validated injected instances with 2,468 candidate natural errors harvested from frontier- and efficiency-tier models, of which a two-annotator audit confirms 1,909 as genuine errors. Primary labels are assigned deterministically, not by LLM judges, with the human audit as a separate validation layer. Across three model families (Gemini, Claude, and GPT), AtomCite reaches around 93% binary verification accuracy on the injected benchmark, significantly outperforming every OCR-only condition, including a compute-matched control, and exceeding every prior text-based baseline given the same OCR text. Its repair policy lifts citation precision on the injected mix from a constructed 34% to 87-90% while retaining over 90% of correct claims. AtomCite also transfers: with frozen prompts and zero training, it raises the hallucination-detection scores of two open 7-8B models on five public benchmarks above the same models prompted as direct judges. Finally, the audit shows that noise in automatic labels biases measured verifier accuracy and can reverse system rankings, so evaluations relying only on synthetic or automatic labels risk mismeasuring verification capability.
Chen Qian, Yi-Meng Wang, Yu Chen et al.· 0 citations
Accurate citations are the foundation of academic writing, tracing intellectual origins and substantiating core claims. However, manually navigating the growing volume of scientific literature is increasingly difficult, prompting reliance on automatic citation recommendation. While modern retrieval-augmented architectures have largely mitigated the fabrication of non-existent papers, current systems relying on semantic similarity struggle with misattribution, often citing authentic papers that fail to logically support the author's claim. To address this challenge, we argue that accurate citation requires a shift from similarity-based search to active, claim-level reasoning. We propose ReCite, a decoupled agentic framework that orchestrates location perception, intent-aware query planning, and reflective verification. Trained on synthesized reasoning trajectories, our agent verifies claim-evidence consistency and triggers self-correction loops when retrieved candidates lack logical support. Experiments demonstrate that our lightweight framework outperforms state-of-the-art massive generative models in strict citation accuracy. By grounding literature matching in verifiable logic rather than semantic overlap, ReCite establishes a reliable foundation for automated academic writing.
Yu-Yang Huang, Bobo Li, Jia-Jia Song et al.· 0 citations
Large language models increasingly mediate access to information, and a growing body of work asks whether they cite the sources behind their outputs. That work treats citation as a verification device and applies it to textual documents. Scholarly citation serves two further functions, credit and provenance, and it applies to data as much as to text. This paper argues that data citation for large language models is an open challenge, distinct from document-level citation grounding and harder to solve. We ask how such models should cite data so that outputs stay verifiable, provenance stays traceable, and credit reaches data creators and curators. We set out three research directions. Training data attribution has to turn influence estimates into references for corpora absorbed into model parameters. Data citation at inference time has to identify datasets, subsets, and query results at the right granularity and fixity. Citing knowledge graph facts has to define what a reference to a single triple denotes and how credit propagates along provenance. Progress on all three depends on joint work across the database, information retrieval, knowledge representation, and artificial intelligence communities.
Enterprise question answering is framed as retrieving internal documents and generating grounded answers. Routine enterprise records, however, are work by-products in which required organizational relations remain implicit across heterogeneous sources. Existing benchmarks provide realistic multi-source evidence, but often materialize a predefined answer path and therefore test the composition of stated facts rather than recovery of a target relation absent from the corpus. We call the latter capability latent organizational reasoning. We introduce ENTLORE, a graph-grounded benchmark construction framework that reconstructs an audited enterprise world from routine documents, authoritative organizational tables, and operational records. Versioned organizational conventions certify derived relations in a truth graph, enabling complete golden answers and proof certificates. The aligned anonymized release exposes only the document corpus while withholding private structure and target relations. ENTLORE contains 2,341 documents from three source types and 907 questions spanning explicit lookup, cross-source composition, and latent organizational reasoning, evaluated across 56 model and access configurations. Structuring the released world as an induced entity graph or navigable knowledge base gives the strongest deployable results. Yet supplying gold documents still leaves 30.4% of latent questions unanswered, versus 12.6% and 6.2% for explicit and compositional questions. Enterprise QA therefore depends not only on document recall, but also on whether implicit organizational relations become usable. The benchmark, data, and code are publicly available at https://github.com/scitix/entlore .
Akrin Zheng, Alexander Wu, Alaia Liu· 1 citation· ⚡1
This paper introduces diagnostic word-ablation metrics to quantify this phenomenon and proposes a data-centric solution that can alleviate the observed overcorrection in stance-aware argument retrieval and demonstrates that, for sufficiently powerful models, this approach can alleviate the observed overcorrection.
Angelo Sparacino, Francesca Toni, Adam Dejl· 0 citations
Citation analysis has traditionally been organized around citation intent, function, stance, citation context analysis, and cited text span identification. Recent large language models (LLMs) have been applied to these tasks through prompting, in-context learning, fine-tuning, annotation assistance, and retrieval-augmented generation. Yet it remains unclear whether these studies also develop a more explicit account of citation recognition. This survey reviews LLM-based citation analysis through a recognition-centered lens. We define citation recognition as the identification of the textual and semantic units needed for citation understanding, especially citation context, citation content, and cited content. We summarize pre-LLM assumptions about fixed context windows, interpretative labels, and cited text span grounding, and then synthesize five LLM-based method paradigms: prompting and fine-tuning, LLM-assisted annotation, long-context recognition, retrieval-augmented grounding, and multi-dimensional frameworks. We argue that the next stage of LLM-based citation recognition should give closer attention to boundary quality, content consistency, evidence faithfulness, and reproducibility.
Shu-Qiao Yang, Xiao-Lei Ma, Ping He· International Journal of Eng...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
