MPR-CiteG: Enhancing RAG with Multi-Portfolio Retrieval and Citation-Grounded Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) aims to enhance the trustworthiness of Large Language Models (LLMs) by grounding their outputs in external documents, often using inline citations for verifiability. However, the faithfulness of these citations -- whether the model genuinely uses a source to generate an answer -- remains a critical, unverified assumption. This paper offers the first mechanistic account of how a large language model decides whether to attach an inline citation while answering a factoid question. Using the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model in a controlled experimental environment based on the PopQA dataset, we employ an activation patching approach. We map the underlying mechanism responsible for citation, discovering that it is not a single, localized component but a distributed, multi-stage "attributional ensemble" of attention heads and MLP layers. We show that amplifying or attenuating only those critical heads and MLPs repairs over 90% of missed citations and eliminates 69% of spurious ones on PopQA without harming answer accuracy. Although gains on the multi-document HotpotQA benchmark are modest, the same component set still moves citation rates in the intended direction, indicating that the underlying mechanism is not dataset-specific. The results reveal a potential disconnect between the model's apparent reasoning and its internal computational pathway, suggesting that inline citations can create a false sense of security.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve access to complex information; however, retrieving evidence alone does not ensure that answers are grounded, citation-valid, or appropriately refused. This paper introduces CiteGuard-RAG, a validation-centered AI system for evidence-grounded question answering. The system integrates hybrid semantic-lexical retrieval, citation-constrained generation, sentence-level grounding validation, and single-pass regeneration. Validation is used at runtime to determine whether a candidate answer should be accepted, refused, or regenerated before final delivery. CiteGuard-RAG is evaluated on 400 questions across a controlled housing-law dataset, PrivacyQA, and CUAD. In the controlled evaluation, it achieves 99.1% retrieval accuracy, 98.3% grounded-answer accuracy, and 98.3% citation validity, with no validation-detected hallucinations. Ablation results show that grounded-answer accuracy drops sharply when validation is removed, even when retrieval accuracy remains unchanged. External evaluation shows that while citation validity remains strong, evidence utilization, span alignment, and refusal calibration become harder under domain shift. These findings indicate that trustworthy RAG systems require explicit validation between retrieval and final answer delivery. CiteGuard-RAG provides a practical architecture for linking retrieval, generation, citation checking, abstention, and regeneration in high-stakes information access.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate citation-backed responses, yet citation hallucination remains a major challenge for trustworthy scientific information access. We introduce REASONS, a benchmark of 12,723 sentence-level citation instances spanning 12 arXiv subject categories, designed to evaluate scientific citation attribution under varying evidence conditions. We propose a dual-metric framework consisting of Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR) to characterize the trade-off between reliability and responsiveness. Using author-attribution and title-attribution tasks, we evaluate proprietary and open-source LLMs under zero-context, metadata-augmented, cascaded metadata-augmented prompting (CMP), retrieval-augmented, and adversarial settings. Advanced RAG lowers HR relative to Naive RAG (65.4% vs. 87.6%) but reduces AR from 5.0% to 0%. Under adversarial metadata, several systems exceed 85% HR, while retrieval-augmented variants frequently maintain near-zero abstention. Human evaluation of 1,000 outputs ($κ=0.78$) finds a 12.7:1 ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases. Our findings demonstrate that citation attribution systems should be evaluated not only for correctness but also for their ability to abstain appropriately under uncertainty. REASONS provides a benchmark and evaluation framework for studying attribution reliability in citation generation.