How Do LLMs Cite? A Mechanistic Interpretation of Attribution in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds a language model's answers on retrieved external knowledge and returns each answer with citations that identify its sources. Those citations are the user's audit trail: they let a reader verify a claim without trusting the model. Prior security work on RAG asks whether an attacker can corrupt the answer, leaving the citation channel unexplored. We show that this channel is a new and practical attack surface. We propose CiteShade, the first citation laundering attack to RAG, in which an attacker controlling a single source induces a model to produce an attacker-chosen wrong answer and to attribute it to a trusted source that does not support it, while the evidence for the correct answer remains in context. We formulate the attack as an optimization problem, derive three necessary conditions (retrieval, generation, and citation) and construct sources satisfying them without any instruction. On multi-source multi-hop question answering the attack raises the wrong-answer rate from 0.01 to 0.68, and source deletion confirms the malicious source is the causal driver in every measured case. Vulnerability tracks a model's propensity to cite rather than its scale, reaching CLR 0.84 under explicit instruction and 0.64 with no instruction at all on the most citation-prone model tested. We then show that perplexity filtering and citation-support checking are each insufficient, and propose a counterfactual defense that verifies which source actually drove the answer.

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 (LLMs) power deep research agents that synthesize information from hundreds of web sources into cited reports, yet these citations cannot be reliably verified. Current approaches either trust models to self-cite accurately, risking bias, or employ retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that does not validate source accessibility, relevance, or factual consistency. We introduce the first source attribution evaluation framework that uses a reproducible AST parser to extract and evaluate inline citations from LLM-generated Markdown reports at scale. Unlike methods that verify claims in isolation, our framework closes the loop by retrieving the actual cited content, enabling human or model evaluators to judge each citation against its source. Citations are evaluated along three dimensions. (1) Link Works verifies URL accessibility, (2) Relevant Content measures topical alignment, and (3) Fact Check validates factual accuracy against source content. We benchmark 14 closed-source and open-source LLMs across three evaluation dimensions using rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge evaluators calibrated through human review. Our results reveal that even the strongest frontier models maintain link validity above 94% and relevance above 80%, yet achieve only 39-77% factual accuracy, while fewer than half of open-source models successfully generate cited reports in a one-shot setting. Ablation studies on research depth show that Fact Check accuracy drops by approximately 42% on average across two frontier models as tool calls scale from 2 to 150, demonstrating that more retrieval does not produce more accurate citations. These findings reveal a critical disconnect between surface-level citation quality and factual reliability, and our framework provides the evaluation infrastructure to assess the disconnect.