Citation Verification

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

4 papers in the last four weeks, with none the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 34

Oct 6, 2026cs.CL

Same-Number Citation Swaps: Stress-Testing Jev as a Financial Evidence Judge

Financial reports repeat values across periods, metrics and accounting lines, allowing an LLM-generated calculation to be numerically correct while citing the wrong financial role. We evaluate what probabilistic evidence verification adds beyond number matching using Jev as a source-support verifier for GPT-4.1-mini calculation traces. A signed-number-at-pointer baseline explains most recovery over exact quotation checks. To isolate the remaining role-recognition problem, we hold operands and arithmetic fixed, move citations between same-number cells, and retain controls that express equivalent facts. These contrasts reveal both wrong-role citations that pass and valid alternative citations that are withheld. Explicit column labels improve selected wrong-role decisions while also lowering support for some equivalent evidence. A constructed follow-up on 36 new source pages, labeled by a non-author reviewer, extends this evaluation and exposes the same tradeoff between detecting role errors and retaining valid citations. The contribution is a controlled evaluation that identifies what a probabilistic financial verifier distinguishes when numerical matching is held fixed. For LLM-based financial assistants, it makes numerical correctness, cited-role support and acceptance outcomes separately assessable.

Chuhong Xu, Bo Su, Ziyao Chen +3

Sofia University · Indiana University · University of California, San Diego +2

LLM-as-a-Judge Citation Verification

Sep 14, 2026cs.CL

Verifiable by Construction: Claim-Level Evaluation of Verbatim Citation in Clinical Question Answering

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted for clinical question answering (QA). Current systems can attach citations to their answers, but these often point to broad texts, leaving time-pressed clinicians unable to verify them efficiently. An alternative is to ensure that responses are verifiable by construction: providing fine-grained verbatim quotes from reference material that substantiate claims, so users can verify an answer without opening other documents. In this paper, we evaluate the ability of current models to perform this task end-to-end: from providing citations for every factual claim, to producing verbatim quotes, to ensuring that those quotes fully substantiate the claims. To do so, we build a standardized harness over four clinical practice guidelines and evaluate twelve LLMs on 222 synthetic clinical questions, measuring each of these stages separately. We find that most models can attach verbatim quotes to over 90% of their claims from prompting alone, apart from some lightweight models such as claude-haiku-4.5. Yet these quotes often fail to substantiate every detail of the claims they accompany. For instance, claude-opus-5 produces verbatim quotes for 98.0% of its claims, but fully substantiates only 37.1%. Our work provides insights into the current capability gap of LLMs in building verifiable clinical QA systems, along with artifacts for future research.

Jiashuo Zhang, Yuling Chen, Yvonne Commodore-Mensah +1

Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University · School of Nursing Johns Hopkins University

LLM Grounding LLM Answer Verification Citation Verification Clinical QA Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Sep 14, 2026cs.CL

CiteGuard-RAG: A Validation-Centered AI System for Evidence-Grounded Question Answering

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.

Sumit Barua, Guan Hong, Halil Dursunoglu +2

Department of Computer Science, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation Citation Verification RAG Evaluation Evidence-Grounded Generation RAG Robustness

Sep 9, 2026cs.CL

GANDR: Claim Auditing for Verifiable Legal Answer Generation

In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the source the system cites. Current grounded-generation pipelines score the answer as a whole, so a correct conclusion can rest on fabricated or loosely matched citations and still score well. Closing this gap requires both a system built for per-claim verification and an evaluation that measures it. We introduce GANDR (Grounded ANswer DRafter), a two-agent system in which a Drafter writes an answer in a structured legal-reasoning format and a separate Critic, with the same view as a human verifier, audits each claim against its cited source and emits a per-claim audit trace on every round. We pair it with a strict correctness criterion requiring every citation to resolve to a passage the retriever returned. On a 185-item legal benchmark where all six systems share one backbone, one retrieval surface, and one citation instruction, GANDR ranks first on every primary metric, reaching 70.8% strict accuracy and leading the strongest baseline by 11.3 points (p<0.01). Reverting the protocol-anchored commit rule lowers strict accuracy by 22.7 points, and the strict lead stays positive on three further backbones, at +3.2 to +6.5 points. This lead traces to the Drafter configuration and the protocol-anchored commit, not to rewriting. Against two law-trained annotators the audit flags under-supported claims at F1 0.84 as a binary detector, while its four-way verdict labels agree only weakly and are advisory. Code is available upon request.

Chen Qian, Yimeng Wang, Yu Chen +2

William & Mary · Anytime AI

LLM Answer Verification Legal Citation Verification LLM Auditing Citation Verification Legal QA Evidence-Grounded Generation

Sep 8, 2026cs.CL

ReCite: Agentic Reasoning for Faithful Citation

Accurate citations are the foundation of academic writing, tracing intellectual origins and substantiating core claims. However, manually navigating the growing volume of scientific literature is increasingly difficult, prompting reliance on automatic citation recommendation. While modern retrieval-augmented architectures have largely mitigated the fabrication of non-existent papers, current systems relying on semantic similarity struggle with misattribution, often citing authentic papers that fail to logically support the author's claim. To address this challenge, we argue that accurate citation requires a shift from similarity-based search to active, claim-level reasoning. We propose ReCite, a decoupled agentic framework that orchestrates location perception, intent-aware query planning, and reflective verification. Trained on synthesized reasoning trajectories, our agent verifies claim-evidence consistency and triggers self-correction loops when retrieved candidates lack logical support. Experiments demonstrate that our lightweight framework outperforms state-of-the-art massive generative models in strict citation accuracy. By grounding literature matching in verifiable logic rather than semantic overlap, ReCite establishes a reliable foundation for automated academic writing.

Yuyang Huang, Bobo Li, Jiajia Song +4

School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Wuhan University · National University of Singapore

Citation Verification Agentic RAG Agentic Reasoning Recommender Systems

Aug 6, 2026cs.AI

HERALD: Counterfactual Audits and Minimal Repairs for Proof-of-Retrieval Rewards

Search-agent rewards mix answer quality, citation grounding, tool cost, and anti-hacking terms; a high score therefore need not imply that cited evidence was retrieved, and added penalties can cancel. We introduce HERALD, an offline audit that applies exact same-question interventions, separates candidate-visible from oracle information, and enumerates detector contracts before policy optimization. On four Qwen3-8B pools from HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, and MuSiQue,

R_0

rejects search deletion and fake IDs, but a label-free citation-laundering attack succeeds. A complete

2^3

ablation identifies targeted strengthening of

L

---citing a corpus passage absent from the retrieved evidence---as the observed inclusion-minimal repair:

R[L]

has zero empirical ASR with a 0.50% one-sided cluster upper bound. The gap persists across pool rules, a visible BM25 attacker, and four models; broader hardening remains vulnerable when the attack removes an oracle support-ID penalty. Under strict 5M-token matched training evaluated on 256 paired questions per benchmark,

R[L]

meets the EM non-inferiority gate on HotpotQA and 2Wiki but not MuSiQue. Equal-suite citation precision and support recall improve by 2.02 and 1.46 points, unsupported citations fall by 1.69, and laundering attackability falls on 2Wiki and MuSiQue. Natural

L

is not reduced, and the detector appears in only 18 of 58,368 training trajectories. HERALD thus separates robust scoring, sparse learning signal, and policy transfer.

Zhuowen Liu, Bohan Cui, YinShang Guo +2

The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Fudan University · Nanjing University +2

Reward Hacking LLM Auditing Citation Verification RAG Security RAG Evaluation

Jul 29, 2026cs.AI

Evidence-Ledger Adjudication for Claim-Evidence Traceability

AI agents can draft claims faster than authors can check whether the cited or retrieved evidence supports them. We study evidence-ledger adjudication: a claim-evidence traceability workflow that pairs each claim with an evidence packet, assigns a support relation, and routes unsupported, contradicted, or mixed-evidence claims back to the author. The empirical core is a 2,335-row blind benchmark built from independent external labels in AVeriTeC, CLIMATE-FEVER, and SciFact. Gold relations and source evidence labels are hidden during prediction and joined only for scoring. On this benchmark, the agent evidence-ledger condition achieves 0.676 relation accuracy and 0.601 macro-F1, compared with 0.383 accuracy and 0.303 macro-F1 for the best non-agent baseline. It also routes 1270/1435 claims whose gold labels indicate contradiction, missing evidence, or mixed evidence, while routing 295/900 supported claims. These results show that evidence-ledger adjudication can turn heterogeneous evidence packets into an auditable traceability layer for AI-assisted writing.

Gengyu Chen, Yongjie Yu, Weiling Wang

Carnegie Mellon University · Syracuse University

Claim Verification Citation Verification Agent Evaluation Automated Fact-Checking

Jul 23, 2026cs.AI

Traceable Scholarship: Page Anchors and Ariadne's Thread for Humanistic Inquiry in the Age of Generative AI

Generative AI lets large language models produce scholarly-looking text within seconds, yet fluency does not equal valid explanation. The deepest risk is not factual error alone but the appearance that an explanation is already established without clear sources, page numbers, editions, or evidence. We liken the page anchor to Ariadne's thread: within the labyrinth of generative fluency, it is the thread that leads the scholar back to the source. This paper proposes Traceable Scholarship as the minimum normative condition for AI-assisted humanistic research, situating it across the three revolutions of knowledge infrastructure: print, digital, and generative AI. We introduce page anchors, dual page numbers, citation-first generation, NO_EVIDENCE, human verification, four-level compliance, and Scope Contract, and present AIH-Infra as a three-layer reference implementation: Contexture (document structuring), Open WebUI AIH-Infra (traceable knowledge base), and AIH-Infra MCP Server (agent gateway). A case study on a 29-volume Kant Akademie-Ausgabe knowledge base illustrates how traceability supports retrieval correction, evidence grading, and judgment downgrading. Traceability is not a software feature; it is the condition under which humanistic research can remain public and refutable in the age of generative AI.

Deyu Jing

Fudan University, Shanghai, China

Data Provenance Citation Verification Evidence-Grounded Generation Human Oversight of AI

Jul 23, 2026cs.CL

LegalCiteTrust: Benchmarking Citation Trustworthiness in Chinese Long-Form Legal Research Reports

Long-form legal research reports increasingly rely on LLMs and agentic research systems, but their reliability depends not only on answering the task, but also on whether cited legal authorities are trustworthy. A citation can be risky even when it points to a real source: the report may omit limiting conditions, misdescribe the authority, or use it to support a stronger claim than the source allows. We introduce LegalCiteTrust, a benchmark for evaluating citation trustworthiness in Chinese long-form legal research reports. It contains 72 densely annotated report-level tasks and evaluates reports along three dimensions: Coverage, Support, and Citation Trustworthiness. Citation Trustworthiness is operationalized through citation-level Existence, Fidelity, and Applicability (E/F/A). Experiments on general-purpose LLMs, deep-research systems, and legal-specific systems show that task completion, evidence richness, citation density, and citation reliability expose different system behaviors. Retrieval tools can improve evidence support without reliably improving the Trust score, while E/F/A-based revision improves Trust and Final score more clearly than existence-only filtering. These results suggest that trustworthy legal research generation requires citation-aware evidence governance after retrieval: systems must not only retrieve legal authorities, but also select, describe, and apply them reliably.

Yunhan Li, Mingjie Xie, Zeyang Shi +2

Faculty of Data Science, City University of Macau, Macau · Southern University of Science and Technology, China · Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Legal Citation Verification Citation Verification LLM Reliability

Jul 20, 2026cs.CR

HALLMARK: Diagnosing Three Failure Modes in LLM Citation Verifiers

Large language models (LLMs) now routinely draft literature reviews and assist with academic writing, which means a higher risk of fabricated references: GPTZero found 53 papers with hallucinated citations among NeurIPS 2025's accepted set. Rule- and LLM-based verifiers are emerging, but no shared benchmark compares them and gives detailed failure diagnostics. We close that gap with HALLMARK (Hallucination benchmark): 2,526 BibTeX entries spanning 14 hallucination types, three difficulty tiers, six diagnostic sub-tests per entry, and a contamination-resistant held-out split. On it we evaluate a DOI-lookup baseline, frontier LLMs zero-shot, tool-augmented agents, and our own rule-based, co-designed verifier bibtex-updater. Across the benchmark one result is consistent: the false-positive rate, not recall, decides whether a verifier is deployable. HALLMARK makes it concrete through three failure modes: agentic lookups buy recall but inflate false positives; at a venue-realistic base rate, the order-of-magnitude spread in false-positive rates (FPRs) -- not recall -- governs whether a verifier's flags are mostly true catches or mostly noise; and most LLMs over-flag papers published past their training cutoff, where only the two latest-cutoff models hold their false-positive rate near in-distribution levels (a signal we report as descriptive, since it is confounded with possible recall of those entries). Thus FPR is the deployment bottleneck, but an undetected fabrication remains the costlier error for the scientific record.

Patrik Reizinger, Wieland Brendel

Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, ELLIS Institute Tübingen

LLM Evaluation Citation Verification LLM Hallucination Detection

Jul 15, 2026cs.CL

DS@GT ARC at LongEval: Citation Integrity and Factual Grounding in Scientific QA

This paper describes DS@GT ARC's submission to the CLEF 2026 LongEval Task 4 on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). In this submission, we examine a divergence between traditional natural language evaluation metrics and citation integrity as applied to RAG QA systems. We evaluate a corrective pipeline using Corrective RAG (CRAG) and CiteFix against baseline and frontier model benchmark RAG QA scores. While frontier models maximized answer relevance and fluency scores, our RAGAs LLM-as-judge diagnostics indicate that frontier models would correctly identify relevant documents without using their context in answer generation. Conversely, by filtering chunks pre-generation and enforcing strict entailment of generated claims to the cited material post-generation, our corrective pipeline marginally improved citation faithfulness and answer grounding. We propose that evaluation of trustworthy RAG QA requires metrics that reward strict answer grounding.

Brandon Michaels, Brendon Johnson

Georgia Institute of Technology, North Ave NW, Atlanta, GA 30332

Retrieval-Augmented Generation Citation Verification Scientific QA RAG Evaluation Evidence-Grounded Generation

Jul 14, 2026cs.AI

On-Device Deep Research at 4B: Exposure Bounds Faithfulness, Retrieval Bounds Coverage

On-device research agents search a corpus, read sources, and write a cited brief on a personal laptop. Whether their citations are faithful, and at what cost, is unmeasured for a deployable small model. This study fixes one 4B generator on a 24 GB laptop and asks what makes its citations faithful. It separates two quantities usually reported as one number. Cited claim faithfulness asks whether the cited source supports the claim. Trustworthy coverage asks whether the agent also cites the right sources. The study crosses how much of each source the generator sees, 400 against 1500 characters, with the quality of the sources supplied, gold papers against retrieved papers. Two levers fall out, and they act on different outcomes. Exposure sets faithfulness. More of each source lifts faithfulness from 0.45 to 0.58 on retrieved sources and from 0.37 to 0.58 on gold sources, and the two settings converge, so faithfulness is bound by exposure, not by whether the source is correct. The exposure lift is robust to a second, independent judge; the exact convergence is tight under the primary judge and only approximate under the second. Retrieval sets coverage. Trustworthy coverage stays near 0.22 on retrieved sources at any exposure, because recall is held near 0.40, so exposure cannot fix which sources are cited. The extra exposure costs about 235 output tokens. The practical recipe is to raise per source exposure first, cheaply, and then treat retrieval recall as the only remaining lever.

Vinay Kumar Chaganti

Independent Researcher

Contextual Faithfulness Citation Verification RAG Evaluation Autonomous Research Agents

Jul 13, 2026cs.CL

ResearchQA: Benchmarking Citation-Grounded Question-Answering on Scientific Papers

Large language models are increasingly used to assist scientific reading, but existing evaluation methods often fail to detect whether answers are supported by verifiable citations. We introduce ResearchQA, a benchmark of 6,211 single-paper question-answer pairs from 494 open-access papers spanning eight domains and four question types: lookup, comprehension, multi-hop, and adversarial. ResearchQA is designed for citation-grounded evaluation: it permits multiple valid supporting passages for a claim and rewards grounded refusal when the source paper does not support an answer. We evaluate eight leading closed- and open-weight models in a citation-grounded chat-with-paper setting using a deterministic citation matcher and an LLM-based rubric evaluator. Citation-based metrics separate systems more clearly than LLM-evaluator scores: section coverage and citation accuracy vary substantially across models, while evaluator scores remain tightly compressed. We further find that open-weight models approach the best closed-model citation accuracy while achieving 3 to 6 times lower per-example latency. We release the benchmark, evaluation harness, and evaluator prompt.

Saba Imran, Debanjum Singh Solanky

Khoj Inc.

LLM Evaluation Citation Verification Scientific QA Knowledge-Intensive QA

Jul 9, 2026cs.CL

Do You Need a Frontier Model as a Citation Verifier? Benchmarking Rubric LLMs for Deep-Research Source Attribution

Reinforcement learning increasingly relies on an LLM judge to score each rubric criterion, and that judge acts as the reward model during training. Before such a signal can be trusted, we need to know how capable the judge must be and how biased it is. We study this calibration question for citation quality in deep-research systems, where a search-grounded LLM must support each claim it writes with a cited source. Citation quality is a structured rubric task in which each attribution-citation pair is judged along two dimensions that require an LLM, source relevance and factual support. On an adversarial long-form benchmark, we score 8 off-the-shelf LLM judges from 3 model families against gold labels over 1,248 rubric decisions, all of which were human-reviewed and 378 of which were hard cases adjudicated from judge disagreements. Cheaper judges remain competitive across both dimensions, with GPT-5-mini attaining the strongest source-relevance pass-class F1 at 0.908 (

κ

=0.636), while on factual support the judges are statistically indistinguishable (overlapping confidence intervals), so no single model dominates. At comparable F1, the judges still differ substantially in pass-rate drift, false positive rate, and false negative rate. Scalar F1 obscures this directional bias, yet it is exactly what a downstream reinforcement learning loop would reinforce. Calibrating the judge is therefore a prerequisite for using citation rubrics as reward signals, and our results show that this calibration does not require the most expensive available model.

Ethan Leung, Elias Lumer, Corey Feld +3

Commercial Technology and Innovation Office, PricewaterhouseCoopers, U.S.

LLM-as-a-Judge Citation Verification Language Model Calibration Language Model Bias Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge

Jul 1, 2026cs.DL

Phantom References: Hallucinated Citations That Survive Peer Review at Top-Tier Conferences

Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record. Assessing this risk via technical statements is difficult and often requires expert judgment, but citations provide a more auditable surface: a reference either resolves to a real scholarly work with compatible authorship, or it does not. We measure citation hallucination in peer-reviewed proceedings using a conservative definition limited to identity-level failures: non-existent works and substantial author-list mismatches. We explicitly exclude ordinary bibliographic drift (e.g., venue/year differences, publication-status updates, minor name variants). To audit citations at scale, we build RefChecker, a verification pipeline that resolves bibliography entries against multiple bibliographic sources and escalates unresolved cases to web-search re-verification. We apply RefChecker to accepted camera-ready papers from ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, and USENIX Security. Hallucinated citations have entered the archival record. While reference-level rates are usually below 1%, proceedings are large enough that paper-level failures are visible: in 2025, roughly one in twenty NeurIPS and USENIX Security papers contains at least two likely hallucinated academic-paper-like references under our strict definition. We also observe post-ChatGPT increases in several venues, including a tail of papers with 5+ failures in a single bibliography, and likely hallucinated citations even among award-winning papers. These results suggest peer review alone does not reliably enforce citation integrity, yet auditing is tractable (about 0.04$ per paper in one venue-scale scan). We open-source RefChecker for routine, reproducible citation verification before publication (https://github.com/markrussinovich/refchecker).

Mark Russinovich, Ram Shankar Siva Kumar, Ahmed Salem

*Microsoft Azure · §Microsoft

Hallucination in Language Models Citation Verification Scholarly Peer Review LLM Hallucination Detection

Jun 24, 2026cs.CL

ProvenAI: Provenance-Native Traces of Evidence in Generated Answers

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.

Mohammad Faizan, Dalal Alharthi

College of Information Science University of Arizona

Multi-Hop QA Data Provenance Citation Verification RAG Evaluation

Jun 23, 2026cs.CL

The Warrant Gap: Claim-Conditioned Re-scoring for Fact-Checking

Fact-checking systems built on LLMs achieve high verdict accuracy on standard benchmarks, yet routinely output Supports labels whose cited evidence does not license the claim. Structured decomposition is the natural way to inspect those warrants, but rigid extraction protocols strip the full-claim context that facets need. We introduce SIFT -- claim-conditioned re-scoring of extracted evidence spans against the full claim -- paired with WSP (Warranted Supports Proportion), an automatic NLI check that the cited warrant entails the claim. We evaluate on FEVER, SciFact, 5PILS, and DP across four open-source backbones. SIFT recovers accuracy on cells where naive decomposition costs up to 27.6 points, while raising WSP above direct prompting; WSP itself calibrates against human gold evidence at AUC 0.92 and precision 0.98.

Arka Ujjal Dey, John Collomosse

Factual Consistency Evaluation Citation Verification Automated Fact-Checking

Jun 21, 2026cs.CL

How Does Research Evolve? Tracing Cross-Domain Trajectories in NLP, ML, and CV with Claim-Grounded Typed Citations

How does research evolve, and what substrate would let us forecast where it goes next? Scientific progress is not simply a uniform accumulation of facts: ideas extend prior methods, address known limitations, realize proposed future directions, and sometimes dispute earlier claims. Existing citation graphs usually collapse these roles into a single homogeneous edge type, limiting how we can analyze scientific progress. We address this gap by proposing the SciTraj corpus, the first claim-grounded typed citation graph in which each edge is linked to the specific claim sentence that motivates it. Claim-bearing sentences are extracted from paper sections; four claim-driven relations are verified by NLI entailment against in-paper context, while two similarity-only relations are gated by abstract cosine and year-gap rules. SciTraj contains 32,559 papers from NLP, ML, and Vision (2015--2024), connected by 573,126 directed edges across six relation types, with NLI-verified claim seeds. Using SciTraj, we identify disciplinary siloing in typed citation flow and topic emergence concentrated in Vision and LLM-related work. The corpus also contains 287M typed trajectories of length

\geq 3

, covering 72.8% of papers, and supports a temporally split typed link-prediction benchmark. A year-shuffle falsifiability test separates temporal structure from year-correlated content, and a 3-annotator pilot reports

κ= 0.74

with 79.9% precision.

Abdul Muntakim, Md Abdullah Al Hafiz Khan, Sadid Hasan +1

Kennesaw State University, Georgia, USA · Microsoft, Cambridge, USA

KG Construction Citation Verification

Jun 20, 2026cs.CL

OpenBioRQ: Unsolved Biomedical Research Questions for Agents

A working citation looks like proof -- but the fact that a link resolves does not mean the cited paper supports the claim. I find that current agentic models rarely fabricate citations (over

99\%

resolve), yet roughly

15.9\%

link to the wrong paper. Existing benchmarks miss this failure mode: when a question has a fixed answer key, a model can reproduce the expected source from that key rather than independently verifying that the source supports the claim. I introduce \textbf{\openbiorq{}}, a retrieval-grounded agentic benchmark of

12{,}553

unsolved biomedical research questions across

12

domains that treats open questions as a faithfulness-and-abstention probe. To my knowledge, this is the first biomedical benchmark to combine an agentic setting -- where the model must issue multiple tool calls -- with unsolved questions that have no answer key. Openness is verified against real follow-up evidence rather than a model's parametric knowledge. Difficulty is empirical: I anchor it on questions that three open-weight reference models fail to answer, rather than on subjective hardness labels. On this hardest subset, held-out models from the same lineage as the difficulty anchors solve only ~17%, while three independent frontier agents (Gemini-3-Pro, Opus-4.7, GPT-5.5) span a wide 29-60% range. The benchmark is thus hard, non-saturating (the best agent still leaves ~33-40% unsolved), and discriminating across capability tiers. Beyond difficulty, I observe agentic collapse on the hardest questions, where agents stop using their tools. For the most collapse-prone model, blocking tool access entirely barely changes its score -- so tools stop paying off exactly where they are needed most. A frozen per-question checklist raises inter-judge agreement from Spearman 0.35 to 0.82.

Minbyul Jeong

Upstage AI

AI Agent Reliability Citation Verification LLM Agent Evaluation Biomedical QA AI Agent Benchmarks Agentic RAG

May 28, 2026cs.AI

DeepSurvey: Agent-Oriented Automated Survey Generation with Analytical Depth and Citation Reliability

As scientific literature grows rapidly and research increasingly involves AI agents, automated survey generation has become a key capability for both agents and human researchers. For such agents, a survey serves as a primary knowledge source of a field prior to research. Since pretrained models already encode broad knowledge of established work, these consumers benefit more from analytical depth than from breadth alone; moreover, unsupported claims, once ingested as knowledge, can propagate into downstream research. However, existing systems tend to overemphasize coverage and presentation; they suffer from limited analytical depth due to reliance on abstracts and isolated paper processing, and from unreliable citations due to imprecise retrieval and post-hoc grounding. We present DeepSurvey, an agentic generation system that addresses both limitations. To enhance depth, DeepSurvey extracts structured keynotes, models cross-paper relationships through clustering and comparative analysis, and integrates a code-agent subsystem to recover implementation-level details. To fortify reliability, it combines citation-graph expansion with hybrid filtering for topic-focused retrieval, enforces evidence-constrained analysis and writing, and deploys multi-granularity agentic refinement to validate citation--claim alignment. Experiments show that DeepSurvey achieves the highest content score (8.34/10) and citation quality (recall and precision gains of 25.3% and 35.2% over the strongest baseline), generalizes more robustly across domains, and is preferred by domain experts over human-written surveys (83.3% in overall quality, 100% in content depth). Moreover, when a coding agent uses a survey as its only literature source, the agent equipped with DeepSurvey achieves the best performance among human-written and baseline-generated surveys.

Ziyue Yang, Da Ma, Hanqi Li +8

X-LANCE Lab, School of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Suzhou Laboratory, Suzhou, China · Shanghai Innovation Institution, Shanghai, China +1

AI for Science AI Agents for Scientific Discovery Citation Verification Evidence-Grounded Generation

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

Department of Artificial Intelligence, Yonsei University · ParamitaAI · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Konkuk University +2

Citation Verification RAG Evaluation

May 27, 2026cs.AI

Relevant Is Not Warranted: Evidence-Force Calibration for Cited RAG

Cited RAG evaluation often treats visible sources as a grounding signal, but a real, topically relevant citation can still under-warrant the attached wording. We study this diagnostic failure as citation laundering: a related source is presented as warrant for an over-strong claim. We introduce FORCEBENCH, a contrastive stress test for evidence-force calibration. Each item holds a cited passage fixed and pairs an evidence-calibrated claim with a localized force-raised variant across five operational axes: relation, modality, scope, temporal validity, and numeric specificity. A calibrated evaluator should score the evidence-calibrated claim higher. Headline experiments use a fixed, locality-filtered 198-pair evaluation set. A citation-presence sanity check is uninformative by design; token and entity overlap still violate monotonicity on 32.8--36.4% of pairs. Across four reported model judges, standard generic support prompting is insufficient for this force-calibration stress test (aggregate MVR 47.2%), while explicit warrant-strength prompting lowers MVR to 24.5% but remains imperfect. We release the benchmark, prompts, outputs, and plug-in pipeline so citation evaluators can report monotonicity violation rate and force sensitivity alongside conventional support metrics.

Pin Qian, Su Wang, Xiaoyuan Wang +7

Carnegie Mellon University · Georgia Institute of Technology · Dartmouth College +3

Factual Consistency Evaluation Citation Verification RAG Evaluation

May 26, 2026cs.AI

DeepSciVerify: Verifying Scientific Claim--Citation Alignment via LLM-Driven Evidence Escalation

Misalignment between claims and their cited evidence is a common failure mode in reports generated by large language models, limiting their reliability in scientific and other high-stakes settings. We present DeepSciVerify, a two-stage pipeline for scientific claim-citation verification that combines abstract-level reasoning with selective escalation to passage-level evidence. The system first verifies claims using the abstract and defers uncertain cases, retrieving and analyzing full-text passages only when necessary. This design leverages complementary behaviors across LLMs, as some models are more conservative while others are more decisive under uncertainty. On the SCitance benchmark, DeepSciVerify achieves 86.7 Micro-F1, outperforming strong abstract-only baselines by +4.5 points while resolving 67% of instances without full-text retrieval. These results suggest that selective evidence escalation improves both accuracy and efficiency in claim-citation verification.

Shaghayegh Sadeghi, Khashayar Khajavi, Rise Adhikari +1

FirstPrinciples · School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University

Selective Prediction Citation Verification Evidence Retrieval Scientific Claim Verification

May 26, 2026cs.DL

CiteCheck: Retrieval-Grounded Detection of LLM Citation Hallucinations in Scientific Text

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reports, but they can produce references that appear plausible while containing corrupted metadata or pointing to papers that do not exist. We introduce CiteCheck, a hybrid framework for citation hallucination detection that verifies whether a citation corresponds to a real scholarly work and whether its metadata is faithful to that work. CiteCheck retrieves candidate publications from external scholarly sources, compares the citation against the retrieved candidate using a structured LLM verifier, and maps verifier scores into three labels: Exact, Minor, and Major. We also construct a 982-citation physics benchmark with controlled corruptions that capture both subtle metadata drift and fully fabricated references. On the held-out test set, CiteCheck achieves 88.7 macro-F1 and 88.9% accuracy, outperforming GPT, Claude, and Gemini baselines, including web-search and few-shot variants. These results show that reliable citation verification benefits from combining scholarly retrieval, structured LLM-based comparison, and calibrated decision rules.

Khashayar Khajavi, Shaghayegh Sadeghi, Rise Adhikari +1

FirstPrinciples · School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University

Citation Verification Automated Fact-Checking LLM Hallucination Detection

May 25, 2026cs.AI

ScientistOne: Towards Human-Level Autonomous Research via Chain-of-Evidence

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

Rui Meng, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Jiefeng Chen +10

Google Cloud AI Research

Data Provenance Citation Verification Evidence-Grounded Generation Scientific Reproducibility Autonomous Research Agents Scientific Claim Verification

May 15, 2026cs.SI

CitePrism: Human-in-the-Loop AI for Citation Auditing and Editorial Integrity

Editors and reviewers are expected to ensure that manuscripts cite relevant, accurate, current, and ethically appropriate literature, yet manuscript-level citation auditing remains largely manual, fragmented, and difficult to scale. Citation context, metadata quality, self-citation patterns, and bibliographic integrity all affect whether a reference appropriately supports a local claim. We present CitePrism, a transparent hybrid decision-support framework for editorial citation auditing that combines LLM-assisted contextual reasoning, embedding-based semantic similarity, metadata verification, integrity-oriented flags, and human-in-the-loop analyst review. CitePrism extracts citation neighborhoods, enriches reference metadata, computes fused relevance scores, surfaces metadata and self-citation review prompts, and supports configurable threshold-based triage. In a preliminary validation on a single case-study manuscript with 104 references from pavement engineering, agreement with human binary relevance labels reached Cohen's kappa = 0.429. At operating threshold tau = 17, CitePrism flagged all human-labeled irrelevant citations, while also producing false positives requiring analyst review. These results suggest that CitePrism may support conservative editorial screening and citation-quality triage, but they do not establish general editorial performance. CitePrism is intended as pilot-stage decision support, not as an autonomous misconduct detector or automated editorial decision system. Broader validation across manuscripts, domains, annotators, baselines, and deployment settings is required before operational use.

Gowrika Mahesh, Budanur Madappa Darshan Gowda, Kavana Gopladevarahalli Papegowda +4

Applied Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics, Department of Information, SRH University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Citation Verification Scholarly Peer Review Human-in-the-Loop AI

May 14, 2026cs.AI

Why Neighborhoods Matter: Traversal Context and Provenance in Agentic GraphRAG

Retrieval-Augmented Generation can improve factuality by grounding answers in external evidence, but Agentic GraphRAG complicates what it means for citations to be faithful. In these systems, an agent explores a knowledge graph before producing an answer and a small set of citations. We frame citation faithfulness as a trajectory-level problem: final citations should not only support the answer, but also account for the graph traversal, structure, and visited-but-uncited entities that may influence it. Through controlled ablation experiments, we compare the effects of isolating, removing, and masking cited and uncited graph entities. Our results show that cited evidence is often necessary, as removing it substantially changes answers and reduces accuracy. However, citations are not sufficient, because accurate answers can also depend on uncited traversal context and surrounding graph structure. These findings suggest that citation evaluation in Agentic GraphRAG should move beyond source support toward provenance over the broader retrieval trajectory.

Riccardo Terrenzi, Maximilian von Zastrow, Serkan Ayvaz

Centre for Industrial Software, University of Southern Denmark, Alsion 2, 6400 Sønderborg, Denmark

Data Provenance Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation Citation Verification RAG Evaluation

May 13, 2026cs.CY

Measuring Google AI Overviews: Activation, Source Quality, Claim Fidelity, and Publisher Impact

Google AI Overviews (AIOs) are arguably the most widely encountered deployment of generative AI, reaching over 2 billion users who may not realize the answers they see are AI-generated. Where search engines have traditionally surfaced ranked sources and left users to evaluate them, AIOs synthesize and deliver a single answer - giving Google unprecedented editorial control over what users read and know. We present a large-scale longitudinal measurement study, issuing 55,393 trending queries across 19 topical categories over a 40-day window (March 13 - April 21, 2026). We report four main findings. First, overall AIO activation is 13.7%, rising to 64.7% for question-form queries, while politically sensitive topics see markedly lower rates. Second, AIO-cited domains are more credible than co-displayed first-page results, yet nearly 30% do not appear in those results at all, indicating a source selection mechanism distinct from Google's ranking algorithm. Third, decomposing responses into 98,020 atomic claims, 11.0% are unsupported by the cited pages - with omission the dominant failure mode - and source quality and claim fidelity are largely independent. Fourth, well over half of AIO-cited pages carry display advertising, meaning publishers lose revenue when AIOs suppress the click-through, even as Google's own sponsored ads continue to appear on the same page. Together, these findings document a rapid transformation of the online information ecosystem whose consequences for epistemic security remain poorly understood.

Haofei Xu, Umar Iqbal, Jacob M. Montgomery

Washington University in St. Louis

Citation Verification Generative Retrieval Evidence-Grounded Generation IR Evaluation Generative AI Evaluation

May 13, 2026cs.CL

CiteVQA: Benchmarking Evidence Attribution for Trustworthy Document Intelligence

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced document understanding, yet current Doc-VQA evaluations score only the final answer and leave the supporting evidence unchecked. This answer-only approach masks a critical failure mode: a model can land on the correct answer while grounding it in the wrong passage---a critical risk in high-stakes domains like law, finance, and medicine, where every conclusion must be traceable to a specific source region. To address this, we introduce CiteVQA, a benchmark that requires models to return \textit{element-level} bounding-box citations alongside each answer, evaluating both jointly. CiteVQA comprises 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs spanning seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. To ensure fidelity and scalability, the ground-truth citations are generated by an automated pipeline---which identifies crucial evidence via masking ablation and enforces multi-stage quality control. At the core of our evaluation is Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), which credits a prediction only when the answer and the cited region are both correct. Auditing 20 MLLMs reveals a pervasive Attribution Hallucination: models frequently produce the right answer while citing the wrong region. The strongest system (Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview) achieves an SAA of only 76.0, and the strongest open-source MLLM reaches just 22.5. Ultimately, towards trustworthy document intelligence, CiteVQA exposes a reliability gap that answer-only evaluations overlook, providing the instrumentation needed to close it. Our repository is available at https://github.com/opendatalab/CiteVQA.

Dongsheng Ma, Jiayu Li, Zhengren Wang +9

Peking University · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

VLM Evaluation Citation Verification Document QA

May 9, 2026cs.CL

Source or It Didn't Happen: A Multi-Agent Framework for Citation Hallucination Detection

Large language models are increasingly used in scientific writing, yet they can fabricate citation-shaped references that appear plausible but fail bibliographic verification. Existing detectors often reduce verification to binary found/not-found decisions and rely on brittle parsing or incomplete retrieval, offering little field-level signal to auditors. We reframe citation hallucination detection as taxonomy-aligned field-level adjudication and introduce a 12-code taxonomy spanning Real, Potential, and Hallucinated citations. Based on this taxonomy, we build CiteTracer, a cascading multi-agent detector that extracts structured citations from PDF and BibTeX, retrieves evidence through cache lookup, URL fetch, scholar connectors, and web search, applies deterministic field matching, and routes ambiguous cases to class-specialist judgers. We release a benchmark of 2,450 synthetic citations built from real seeds with controlled LLM mutations, paired with 957 real-world fabricated citations drawn from ICLR 2026 and an anonymous conference desk-rejected submissions. CiteTracer reaches 97.1% accuracy on the synthetic benchmark, with class-level F1 scores of 97.0, 95.8, and 98.5 for Real, Potential, and Hallucinated, respectively, and detects 97.1% of fabrications on the real-world set without abstaining. Code: https://github.com/aaFrostnova/CiteTracer.

Mingzhe Li, Zhiqiang Lin, Shiqing Ma

University of Massachusetts Amherst · The Ohio State University

Hallucination in Language Models Citation Verification LLM Hallucination Detection