Re-Ranking Through an Attribution Lens for Citation Quality in Legal QA

Retrieval-augmented systems routinely present citations alongside generated answers, yet a citation does not confirm that the corresponding source meaningfully shaped the output. This paper introduces ProvenAI, a framework that decomposes transparency in multi-hop question answering into three independently measurable layers: answer correctness, citation fidelity against benchmark supporting evidence, and per-document influence under leave-one-resource-out intervention. Targeting the HotpotQA distractor benchmark through a seven-stage pipeline covering data normalisation, retrieval indexing, citation-aware answer generation, attribution auditing, ablation-based influence estimation, batch evaluation, and interactive inspection, ProvenAI evaluates 7,405 validation examples drawn from a canonical corpus of 509,300 passages. The system achieves 53.53% answer accuracy alongside a mean citation-fidelity score of 71.55%, and a worked example surfaces what we call the citation-influence gap: a clean citation audit co-occurring with a profile in which one cited source registers only weak influence while seven uncited sources demonstrably shift the output. We formalise the relationship between the implemented surface proxy and a token-level KL-divergence target through a stated faithfulness condition, ground the framework in causal-mediation analysis and database-provenance theory, and discuss how the three measurement layers compose with cryptographic provenance architectures emerging in autonomous scientific discovery. ProvenAI establishes that meaningful transparency in retrieval-grounded QA requires traceable links across retrieved, cited, and behaviourally influential evidence as three distinct, independently measured layers.

Large language models are increasingly deployed for legal question answering, where evaluations typically focus on multiple-choice accuracy. This measure overlooks a common failure: whether the citation source attached to an answer exists and supports the rule the system attributes to it. We present L-MARS, an open multi-agent legal QA system with agentic search and judge-driven evidence checks, and audit it claim by claim against its cited source. Each atomic claim is labelled with a six-class taxonomy and scored with strict-ALCE under cross-provider judging, where the answerer and verifier come from different model families. On a stratified 100-question Bar Exam audit, retrieval barely moves accuracy, yet the multi-turn judge loop lifts strict citation F1 from 0.13 (naive RAG) to 0.25 and cuts the no-citation rate from 34% to 13%. We further introduce Faith-Search, a post-draft step that re-verifies and repairs unreachable citations; it drops the unreachable rate below 1% but does not improve F1 over the multi-turn loop, so we report it as a targeted reachability intervention rather than a faithfulness breakthrough. A 50-question LegalSearchQA case study confirms the picture: retrieve-then-draft pipelines saturate near 0.75 citation F1, while a single-agent web-search baseline collapses to 0.22 under external audit.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into legal drafting and research workflows, where incorrect citations or fabricated precedents can cause serious professional harm. Existing legal benchmarks largely emphasize statutory reasoning, contract understanding, or general legal question answering, but they do not directly study a central common-law failure mode: when asked to provide case authorities without external grounding, models may return plausible-looking but incorrect citations or cases. We introduce LegalCiteBench, a benchmark for studying closed-book citation recovery, citation verification, and case matching in legal language models. LegalCiteBench contains approximately 24K evaluation instances constructed from 1,000 real U.S. judicial opinions from the Case Law Access Project. The benchmark covers five citation-centric tasks: citation retrieval, citation completion, citation error detection, case matching, and case verification and correction. Across 21 LLMs, exact citation recovery remains highly challenging in this closed-book setting: even the strongest models score below 7/100 on citation retrieval and completion. Within the evaluated models, scale and legal-domain pretraining provide limited gains and do not resolve this difficulty. Models also frequently provide concrete but incorrect or low-overlap authorities under our evaluation protocol, with Misleading Answer Rates (MAR) exceeding 94% for 20 of 21 evaluated models on retrieval-heavy tasks. A prompt-only abstention experiment shows that explicit uncertainty instructions reduce some confident fabrication but do not improve citation correctness. LegalCiteBench is intended as a diagnostic framework for studying authority generation failures, verification behavior, and abstention when external grounding is absent, incomplete, or bypassed.