Stage-Audit: Auditable Source-Frontier Discovery for Cross-Wiki Tables

While large language models (LLMs) perform well on table tasks, they still make data referencing errors (DREs), i.e., incorrectly citing or omitting table values, despite understanding the table structure. Beyond final-answer accuracy, DREs directly compromise the correctness and reliability of intermediate reasoning steps. Yet prior studies have only offered limited, small-scale analyses. In this work, we present the first systematic evaluation of tabular data referencing errors across different models and tasks. Our results show that DREs occur across all tested models (1.7B to 20B parameters). Furthermore, we demonstrate that incorporating data referencing as a critic significantly improves answer accuracy up to 12.0%, through critic-based filtering and rejection sampling. Finally, we trained a lightweight 4B-parameter critic model that achieves an average F1 score of 78.2% in detecting both in-distribution and out-of-distribution DREs, and effectively assists inference for larger models.

Wikipedia and Wikidata are widely used for information access, LLM pre-training, and retrieval-augmented generation. Their knowledge is deeply connected but scattered across text, tables, and knowledge graphs. This raises a practical question: when these modalities disagree, how can we detect and explain the conflict? We study this problem as modality-level inconsistency detection. We first introduce a taxonomy of cross-modal knowledge inconsistencies, covering information granularity differences, direct conflicts, temporal changes, and KG incompleteness. We then present Kontrast, an automatic framework that uses Text-to-SPARQL and LLM reasoning to compare table-based answers with KG evidence and categorize the resulting inconsistencies. Experiments on various Table-QA datasets show that cross-modal inconsistencies are common and informative. They reveal not only true knowledge conflicts, but also missing KG structure and temporal mismatches while being limited by Text-to-SPARQL errors and noise. Our analysis shows that text, tables, and KGs can complement and correct one another through systematic comparison. Kontrast provides a practical tool for large-scale knowledge auditing and establishes a benchmark for future work on cross-modal knowledge consistency. Code and data are available at https://github.com/ECLADATTA/KONTRAST.

Users of search-augmented LLMs rely on citations as evidence that responses are grounded in real sources, and rarely verify the cited pages themselves. Millions of queries per day now pass through these systems, making citation quality a silent determinant of whether users are informed or misled-yet existing benchmarks each address one facet in isolation, leaving the joint structure that determines citation trustworthiness unmeasured. We construct CITETRACE, a large-scale dataset that traces the full citation chain from user query through retrieved source to generated answer: 11,200 real-world queries from 28 communities paired with 112,000 responses from ten models across five providers, yielding 761,495 evaluable citation pairs. We design a three-dimension evaluation framework that scores each citation on intent-purpose alignment, source suitability, and answer-source fidelity, using expert-validated predefined matrices and a five-level fidelity rubric; the framework applies to any system that produces citation-bearing responses. Applying this framework at scale, we identify a systematic pattern we call VERIFIED MISGUIDANCE (VM): models cite real, accessible sources yet fail along one or more dimensions, producing a fidelity-suitability trade-off in which faithful models select inappropriate sources and vice versa. Across our pool, 30.6% of citations distort their sources and 27.1% originate from domain-inappropriate sources; at the response level, up to 96% of users encounter at least one structurally misleading citation. Provider-level differences explain 88-96% of citation-quality variance, suggesting that source selection is governed more by factors beyond individual model capability than by the LLMs themselves. Together, CITETRACE and its evaluation framework provide the first resource for diagnosing structural citation failures in deployed search-augmented systems.