CITECHOICE: A Causal Audit of How Document Presentation Redistributes Citation Credit in Agentic Search

Sriram Selvam; Anneswa Ghosh

cs.CLSep 14, 2026

CITECHOICE: A Causal Audit of How Document Presentation Redistributes Citation Credit in Agentic Search

Authors: Sriram Selvam, Anneswa Ghosh

Abstract

When several retrieved sources support the same claim, an answer engine cites some but not others. We call this decision citation allocation and introduce CITECHOICE, a causal audit of authentic multi-turn agentic search. From 129 everyday-query transcripts, CITECHOICE selects 113 same-call document pairs with independently verified support for the same pre-specified fact, without observing ranks or answer outcomes; blinded human review confirms 103. It runs a hash-verified 2-by-2 replay crossing pair order with jointly generated, fidelity-checked structured and prose renderings of one target while the rest of the transcript remains fixed. Three results emerge. First, and most importantly, structured rendering concentrates citation credit rather than clearly increasing source admission. It raises target citation count by +0.50 citations per answer (95 percent CI [+0.20, +0.84]; Holm-adjusted p=.033), without increasing total citations or reducing competitor credit. The pre-specified incidence effect (whether the target is cited at all) is +4.5 percentage points and inconclusive (95 percent CI [-1.4, +10.4]; p=.168). Second, observational position differences exceed controlled reordering effects: the citation-rate gap between rank 1 and rank 5 is 42.3 percentage points, compared with +7.9 percentage points in the main replay and 0.0 percentage points held out. Third, citation evaluation has a measurable noise floor. Although the aggregate count effect repeats under fresh decoding of 30 frozen families, 15 percent of binary decisions change and decoding accounts for an estimated 45 percent of single-generation family-effect variance. Together, these findings isolate what survives control: presentation can causally redistribute visible citation credit within frozen transcripts. They do not establish reliable source admission, a pure formatting mechanism, or a general rank advantage.

Explore similar work

May 25, 2026cs.AI

What Gets Cited: Competitive GEO in AI Answer Engines

AI answer engines generate answers from retrieved pages but cite only a few sources. This makes visibility depend not just on ranking, but on being cited. We study competitive Generative Engine Optimization (GEO): when two retrieved candidates compete, what makes one more likely to be cited first? We build a controlled two-document retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) testbed that injects exactly two candidate sources into the model context and measures which source is referenced by the first citation marker in the output. Across six LLMs we execute 252,000 trials, repeated paired comparisons under one factorial program over 18 content factors. In each trial the two sources differ in exactly one factor; we use brand anonymization and counterbalanced source order to separate content effects from position bias. Mixed-effects models show that topical relevance and list position are the biggest drivers of being cited first. Including explicit price information and a recent timestamp also helps consistently. Completeness and trust cues add smaller gains, while formatting-only edits have little impact. We release a reproducible evaluation protocol and a prioritized GEO checklist for practitioners, and we exercised it in an early internal pilot at Sprinklr, where teams reported positive qualitative feedback on workflow usability.

Rahul Vishwakarma, Shushant Kumar, Ratnesh Jamidar

Citations Relevance Reproducibility Order

Ask PDF

Jul 27, 2026cs.CL

CAGE: Cognitive Attribution Graphs for Faithful Inline Citation Generation in Long-Form Question Answering

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.

Zhichao Yan, Shizhao Li, Jiapu Wang +5

Citations Large Reasoning Models Data Generation

Ask PDF

May 27, 2026cs.DL

Verified Misguidance: Measuring Structural Citation Failures in Search-Augmented LLMs

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.

Yongsik Seo, Wooseok Jeong, Eunyoung Kim +2

Citations

Ask PDF