Citations

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.

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.

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.

Background. Large language models are increasingly used to help write biomedical text but may fabricate references to nonexistent work. How often large language models do so is not well characterized. Methods. We prompted 26 language models from eight developers (2023 to 2026) to supply a missing reference for each of 69 biomedical passages across ten domains. References were classified as verifiable (real paper with a resolving identifier), partial matches (real paper without a resolving identifier), fabricated (no matching indexed paper), or declined (the model refused to supply a reference). A reference was considered correct in every evaluated bibliographic field only when it was verifiable and its journal, year, and listed authors matched those of the cited paper. Results. Fabrication ranged from 10.2% (Claude Opus 4.8, which declined 52.1% of prompts) to 98.4% (Ministral 3B, which produced no verifiable reference). Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 produced similar proportions of verifiable references (77.6% and 76.6%) but named authors correctly in 78.7% and 28.7% of author-evaluable verifiable references, respectively, and were correct in every evaluated field in 54.6% and 19.9% of responses. GPT-5.5 was correct in every field in 48.1%. Across all models, 55.4% of responses were fabricated and 14.9% were correct in every field. Among the five tested models first released in 2026, the corresponding proportions were 35.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Conclusions. Fabrication remained common, and no model was correct in every evaluated bibliographic field in more than 54.6% of responses. Models that identify real papers may still misstate their metadata, so references produced with model assistance require verification before use.

Surveys remain the primary way researchers grasp the lineage of methods within an AI subfield, but they scale poorly against the current rate of publication. Existing taxonomy-induction methods are largely leaf-bound and time-agnostic; they tend to force transitional papers into mature leaves and can create topological inversions between ancestors and descendants. We propose EvoTree, a staged framework that decouples conceptual backbone learning from temporal refinement: a graph-aware encoder with distribution-based hierarchical clustering yields a stable taxonomy backbone; temporal fine-tuning then re-attaches marginal papers to internal nodes under monotonic-path constraints; a final LLM pass labels concepts without altering the topology. We release the first annotated benchmark for this task across 11 AI subfields. EvoTree attains the highest NMI and citation-direction accuracy among all baselines and the best concept purity on the annotated benchmark, and is the only method with non-trivial marginal-paper detection on the annotated set.

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.

Citation-based measures of scientific influence typically treat citations as uniform signals, ignoring the different roles that cited works play in a paper's contribution. We introduce contribution-based credit scoring for research articles: a structured citation analysis that decomposes a paper's credit between its own original contribution and the prior work it builds on. Motivated by a cooperative-game view of scientific credit, we propose the contribution tree, a hierarchical framework that conserves importance across the document structure and separates original from citation-derived contribution. To make this framework scalable, we use LLMs as noisy comparative estimators of local importance. We further extend the model to article collections by propagating contributions through weighted citation graphs, yielding corpus-level contributions and normalized influence scores. Our experiments suggest that our framework captures contribution signals beyond surface-level heuristics. Our code is available at https://github.com/sanaebrahimi/Importance_Scoring/

Recorded lecture videos, often enhanced with search and summarization features, are a standard study resource. However, students cannot easily ask course specific questions or verify answers against an instructor's lecture. We report a semester-long deployment of VideoPoints platform with a retrieval-augmented chatbot that answers from course lecture materials and returns timestamped citations. The chatbot retrieves only from the active course, uses chapter summaries to guide transcript ranking, and returns clickable timestamped citations. Students used it for quick lookups and exam review. Across 833 messages, 70.5% included citations, none crossed a course boundary, and when no lecture evidence matched, the chatbot usually declined rather than answering. Among the users, citations were the most consistently useful feature, while practice-question generation was the strongest unmet request. We also evaluated the design on the real-world test split of EduVidQA, a public multimodal benchmark for lecture-video question answering. Our design improved correct-lecture retrieval by 6.3 percentage points over dense-only retrieval. Together, the results show that effective deployment depends on course isolation, supported citations, and alignment with students' study practices.

Statutes are increasingly parsed by machines before people read them, and the parsers disagree: on Missouri's statutes, two independently written extractors diverge on numeric-threshold presence at a false-negative rate of 0.43. We ask what formal logic survives such noise. We build a passive survival certificate for the Duquenne-Guigues implication basis of machine-extracted statutory contexts: per-attribute inter-extractor disagreement is measured, replayed against the basis in 1,000 Monte Carlo trials, and an implication is certified only when a one-sided Wilson 95% lower bound on survival reaches 0.95; every certified implication carries premise spans and a minimal counterexample. On 29,365 Missouri sections and 502 Indian central-Act sections, the preregistered held-out gate passes (10 statute families across 7 Titles exact; 16 across 11 with 5% tolerance), yet under one globally deployed error model 93.2% of held-out chapters fall below the informativeness floor, and a 2x2 factorial assigns that to calibration-rate transfer, not selection. The certificate is usable but fragile: deploy it per-chapter-calibrated or error-tolerant. Code, data products, and the audit trail, including one retracted claim, are released.

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

Effective humanitarian response depends on the rapid synthesis of heterogeneous, high-volume information sources - a task that routinely exceeds human analytical capacity in the critical early hours of a crisis. We present a pipeline that combines structured disaster records from EM-DAT with unstructured documents from ReliefWeb and the European Media Monitor (EMM) to produce source-grounded disaster storylines and causal knowledge graphs supporting situational awareness for responders and analysts. Using Retrieval-Augmented Generation, the pipeline extracts structured storylines - tabular event profiles covering 17 fields, from severity and key drivers to child-sensitive impact indicators - and constructs causal knowledge graphs where each node and edge is enriched with citation-grounded explanatory narratives, enabling full traceability back to primary sources. We evaluate the system on three diverse crisis use cases through a human evaluation involving 9 domain expert and 9 non-expert evaluators. Results confirm high retrieval precision, strong faithfulness of extracted causal relations, and a clear expert preference for citation-grounded components over ungrounded alternatives. The pipeline is designed to scale to the full EM-DAT catalogue, with the goal of publicly releasing a narrative-enriched version of the database.

Online health information seeking is shifting from keyword search, where users consider a ranked list of links, to conversational systems that compose a single answer and curate its citations. Source evaluation therefore passes from user to platform, yet what these systems surface is poorly characterized. We audited three free consumer products (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overview) on twenty English mental health questions under two prompt conditions, with a subset of three also translated into six further languages of varying resource tiers. We recorded 15,942 citations across 1,140 responses and 1,713 unique domains, then classified every citation with a nine-category organizational typology applied by a deterministic classifier validated against human coding. Citations were heavily concentrated: the ten most-cited domains accounted for 43.6% of English citations, and government, commercial health, and academic sources were closely matched at roughly 22% each. Platforms differed little in typical citation volume but sharply in consistency and in the source types they favored. Explicitly requesting sources shifted composition only modestly. Non-English queries surfaced fewer citations and were routed to language-appropriate resources at significantly lower rates. We release the typology, classifier, and annotated corpus as reusable instruments for auditing generative health search.

When medical AI systems hallucinate clinical reasoning, the consequences extend beyond incorrect answers: fabricated justifications that superficially reference retrieved evidence can mislead clinicians into unsafe treatment decisions. Medical reasoning agents must therefore produce not only correct answers but also faithful justifications that clinicians can verify against cited evidence. We identify a systematic failure mode in RL-trained retrieval agents: outcome-only rewards improve accuracy while degrading faithfulness, a phenomenon we term confident hallucination. The agent learns to answer from parametric memory and backfill plausible but unsupported justifications; citation fabrication rates rise from 16.5% to 31.8% even as accuracy improves by 5 points over the supervised baseline. We address this with a faithfulness-gated reward design: accuracy credit is conditioned on evidence grounding via a hard gate, complemented by retrieval validity and conciseness signals that close exploitation paths unique to agentic retrieval. The resulting system, MedAgent-R1, reduces citation fabrication from 31.8% to 4.7% and raises evidence completeness from 58.7 to 82.6 while maintaining 75.1% accuracy, with 13.2-point gains on HealthBench Safety. Under the same agentic retrieval setup, MedAgent-R1 outscores GPT-4o on faithfulness-specific dimensions (Factual Support 4.55 vs. 4.25; Overclaiming 4.40 vs. 4.15) while remaining below GPT-4o in overall accuracy, suggesting that explicit faithfulness training yields evidence-grounding gains not achieved by scaling alone.

Next-basket repurchase recommendation is commonly formulated as a ranking task: given a customer's purchase history, the system ranks previously purchased items that may be needed again. In production settings, however, ranking accuracy is only one component of recommendation quality. Customers may also benefit from concise evidence about why an item is recommended now. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential way to surface such evidence through feature-based, human-readable rationales grounded in interpretable behavioral signals. We construct repurchase features spanning cadence, frequency, recency, user behavior, and item popularity, and evaluate LLMs on two public grocery datasets and one proprietary retail dataset. We investigate (1) whether off-the-shelf LLMs can use these features as next-basket scorers relative to heuristic and supervised rankers, and (2) whether LLM-cited features carry outcome-grounded ranking signal. For the latter, we compare LLM-cited features with model-specific attribution methods under a cross-model feature-masking protocol that measures ranking degradation after masking selected features. Our results show that LLM scores are not competitive with supervised rankers, suggesting that off-the-shelf LLMs should not be used as standalone repurchase recommenders. However, changes in prompt and evidence representation can improve outcome-grounded feature-masking results in some settings even when ranking performance does not improve; the effect is dataset-dependent and does not consistently match attribution baselines. These findings suggest a practical role for LLMs as validated explanation components rather than primary rankers, with rationale quality evaluated separately from ranking accuracy.

In 2023, a New York judge sanctioned two attorneys in Mata v. Avianca for filing a brief with hallucinated citations generated by ChatGPT. Such failures are largely caught by database lookups; the harder problem is detecting citations that point to real cases but do not support the propositions for which they are offered -- a failure mode that existing evaluations of LLMs for legal use cases largely overlook. In this paper, we study proposition-level citation support verification through controlled perturbations of real legal citations obtained from two legal corpora, either replacing the cited case or changing only the pinpoint page within the same case. We evaluate fourteen model configurations on the resulting examples. Models catch 93-100% of wrong-case corruptions. They catch only 37-61% of wrong-pinpoint corruptions on court opinions and 52-83% on legal briefs. When models fail to catch wrong-pinpoint corruptions, they accept the citation based on topical overlap rather than page-level support. Scale and extended reasoning narrow the gap but do not close it: GPT-5.4 with high reasoning effort still misses 40% of pinpoint mismatches on court opinions and 18% on briefs. Prompting the model to verify support at the cited page improves recall, but it also raises the false positive rate. Recognizing the right legal topic and verifying support for the cited proposition are distinct capabilities, and current models conflate them.

Generative engines are reshaping the web ecosystem by making citations a key mechanism for allocating attention, attribution, and downstream value. This creates a strategic tension: content providers are incentivized to optimize for model citation, while platforms must preserve answer quality and trustworthy attribution. We show that this tension can escalate into citation wars. In repeated simulations, state-of-the-art generative engine optimization (GEO) attacks adapt to conventional defenses by producing citation-seeking rewrites that degrade document quality and introduce unsupported claims. To study this problem, we formulate the supplier--platform interaction as a repeated Stackelberg game with partial monitoring. A local best-response analysis identifies when citation competition approaches an inert stationary outcome. Motivated by this finding, we propose a platform--creator mechanism called VCR based on verifiable-content rewards. Rather than only penalizing suspicious rewrites, the platform also credits rewrites that surface checkable factual substance, aligning creator incentives with answer trustworthiness. Experiments on three benchmarks show that VCR consistently achieves the largest Net defense-utility score, outperforming the strongest baseline by an average of 12.1 percentage points, and produces a win--win outcome under our empirical equivalence criterion.

Effective research ideation requires moving beyond a static understanding of prior work to trace how research problems and solutions evolve across the literature. Existing methods either treat papers as unstructured context or model scholarly evolution as isolated citation chains, overlooking interactions among research trajectories. We propose Tree-of-Ideas (ToI), a two-stage framework. EvoTrace reconstructs branching scholarly trajectories from citations, tracking evolving methods, resolved problems, and gaps. EvoAgent then reasons across trajectories to identify convergent problems and complementary solutions, generating grounded research ideas. Across six AI research topics, ToI achieves the highest score among automatic methods (6.27 vs. 5.36 for the strongest baseline on a 10-point scale), with strong Novelty (6.36) and Groundedness (7.00). Also, its score approaches that of human-paper references (6.29), demonstrating the value of cross-path evolutionary reasoning.

Large language model (LLM) benchmark evaluations are routinely used to support claims about model safety, reliability, and deployment readiness. Yet most evaluations rely on a single access modality (model APIs), perform a single run per prompt, and report accuracy as the primary outcome metric, without accounting for conditions such as web search that may have effects on model behavior in deployment. We audit these assumptions for one of the most widely-used LLMs, comparing two modalities, ChatGPT's chat UI and OpenAI's API, with and without web search enabled. We use a stratified total sample of 401 prompts from two popular benchmarks, BBQ and SafetyBench, collecting 4,812 total responses across three repeated runs per prompt. Beyond standard performance measures, we evaluate model output dimensions including response consistency, response text similarity, citation grounding, and abstention behavior. For instance, chat UI responses were less accurate than API responses on both benchmarks with search disabled. Enabling web search reduced accuracy by up to 8 percentage points, and even reversed the direction of modality performance trends for one benchmark. Repeated runs of the same prompt produced inconsistent responses in up to 21% of prompts. The two modalities also grounded answers in different citations, and abstention behavior was also inconsistent across both modalities. These results illustrate that, even within a model family, reporting only simple accuracy metrics can obscure important forms of model behavioral variation relevant to AI safety assessments. We argue that AI safety evaluations should systematically account for modality, multi-run consistency, search conditions, and response-level behaviors to better reflect how deployed AI systems behave in practice.

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.

Citation excerpts can be used to increase the reliability of generated outputs and their faithfulness to cited sources, which is especially important in high-stakes domains such as human and veterinary medicine. However, this does not guarantee that generated claims are faithful to the provided excerpts. We present VetScore, a multi-step evaluation method for veterinary long-form question answering, designed to assess how well are generated claims supported by the provided excerpts, weighing this information by each claim's harm potential. VetScore first segments the output and decomposes it into individual claims, then scores each claim with respect to its harm potential and evaluates its faithfulness to source excerpts, and finally calculates the overall risk-adjusted score. We collect an expert-annotated meta-evaluation dataset, evaluate our approach with a range of judge models, and show that it achieves high correlations with veterinary experts even with small judge models, while offering explainability across multiple dimensions.

Reported verdicts on GraphRAG versus vector RAG disagree, and the evidence is typically tied to a single corpus, embedder, and judge -- and, we show, to where citation quality is measured. We present a triple-robustness analysis that holds a five-pipeline architecture matrix fixed and varies embedder (local e5-small vs. Azure text-embedding-3-small), corpus (DO-178C typed-edge requirements vs. Wikipedia paragraph chains via MuSiQue), and judge (paired GPT-5.4 x GPT-4.1 on both corpora), over 2x4,440 main-matrix runs, 600 cross-corpus runs, and over 5,000 faithfulness judgments. (C2a) GraphRAG's graph walk floods the context window at precision 0.12-0.23, but the synthesizer cites selectively at precision 0.48-0.65; scoring the retrieved set as the attribution set inverts the architecture ranking, which reconciles part of the disagreement in prior reports. (C1) Answer-level citation winners are corpus- and stratum-conditional but embedder-robust: GraphRAG ties vanilla on short-hop DO-178C queries and wins every MuSiQue stratum, while agentic pipelines lead only on 3+-hop requirements queries. (C2b) Faithfulness is corpus-conditional: on DO-178C it declines with hop distance (trend p<0.05 in three of four judge x embedder combinations); on Wikipedia chains neither judge shows a collapse. (C3) Single-judge LLM faithfulness is fragile to retrieval state: GPT-5.4's self-kappa across embedders is 0.137 (41% verdict change) against a same-day test-retest floor of 0.76, and re-judging frozen inputs eleven weeks later gives kappa <= 0.14 for both judges. A learned router on dense embeddings alone reaches macro-F1 0.86 on hop classification (C4). We argue that RAG architecture claims should be tested at this level of robustness -- including robustness to the citation-measurement point -- before they are trusted.

Deep research agents are often trained on expensive, environment-grounded tool-use trajectories that require repeated retrieval, document inspection, and report evaluation. We introduce Deep Research Pretraining (DRP), an offline framework that derives predictive navigation supervision from naturally occurring evidence structures. Given a citation-bearing or hyperlinked passage, DRP constructs a proxy research objective, recovers linked evidence and graph-related alternatives, and converts them into search-open-write trajectories. This teaches models what to search for, which documents to inspect, and how to synthesize evidence, without a live retrieval environment or executed policy rollout. We instantiate DRP on scholarly citation graphs (DRP-Paper) and Wikipedia hyperlinks (DRP-Web), continually pretrain separate Qwen3-14B-Base models on 1B tokens, and fine-tune them on controlled fractions of 13K agent trajectories. Across five independently sampled subsets at each low-data budget, both variants consistently outperform matched no-DRP models on DeepResearch Bench. With one quarter of the SFT data, DRP-Web even surpasses a fixed no-DRP full-data checkpoint, with gains transferring to ResearchQA, WebWalkerQA, and SimpleQA. Starting from matched low-data SFT checkpoints, the DRP-Web advantage also persists through subsequent agentic RL. Source-matched and evidence-mismatch controls indicate that these improvements arise from evidence-conditioned navigation rather than domain exposure or agent-format imitation. DRP thus provides a promising complementary approach to trajectory-based agent training.

Chemistry literature synthesis often requires assembling specific findings scattered across many publications, yet existing literature-search systems primarily return ranked document lists. As a result, scientists and AI agents need to locate relevant information, verify their provenance, and assemble cross-paper answers manually. We present AskChem, a claim-centered infrastructure for cross-paper chemistry search. AskChem changes the unit of retrieval from the paper to the provenance-carrying claim: each paper is converted into atomic, typed claims, each grounded by a source DOI and a verbatim quote or an explicit evidence locator. Over this shared claim store, AskChem exposes complementary structures for search and synthesis: a stabilized faceted taxonomy for hierarchical retrieval and browsing, an evidence graph linking claims through relations, and an exploratory living taxonomy that situates indexed papers under scientific principles. AskChem currently indexes 2.4M claims from 147K papers and provides a web interface, as well as REST, SDK, and MCP access for AI agents. On AskChem-Bench, grounding a GPT-5.5 reader in AskChem yields 100% resolvable DOIs, compared with 88.3% without retrieval, and the highest citation density among five tested systems. AskChem is live at https://askchem.org.

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.

The Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS) is the main national venue for Artificial Intelligence research in Brazil, hosted by the Brazilian Computer Society since 2012 and publishing work from institutions across the country. Across eleven years, from 2015 to 2025, we build a per-paper record of all 1,066 accepted papers from DBLP metadata, 6,765 Google Scholar citations, and the paper full texts, and use it to ask what BRACIS publishes, who publishes it, and which work gets cited. Large Language Model research grows from zero before 2020 to 19% of papers in 2024, on top of a base of Machine Learning, Computer Vision, and Optimization work. The community is hourglass-shaped: 80.5% of 2,623 authors appear in a single edition, while institutions return at nearly three times the author rate. Citations are heavily concentrated, with the top 1% of papers carrying 27% of the total. Openness practices have grown, with artifact release rising from 8.9% of papers in 2015 to 57.3% in 2023, and we find a notable correlation between having an arXiv preprint and higher citation counts. Since proceedings sit behind IEEE and Springer paywalls and only 7.4% of papers have a preprint, most BRACIS work is hard to reach for readers without institutional access.

Prior work on AI brand visibility measures the firm: does a model recommend a company, and does that track its reputation. This study asks the question one level down, in categories where the buyer picks a person. It issued 2,400 grounded API calls in one two-hour window on 24 July 2026: 120 buyer-intent prompts, four models (GPT-5.6 Sol, Gemini 3.6 Flash, Perplexity Sonar Pro, Grok 4.5), five iterations each, four European markets and five query languages. Every response was coded for whether it named an individual professional, by a rule cascade that never consults a roster and that drops detections resolving to a same-named American city (precision 96.9%, recall 61.7%, so every rate below is a lower bound). All inference corrects for clustering within prompt: intraclass correlation 0.258, effective n 407 against a nominal 2,400. Models named an individual in 25.8% of responses. Category dominates: real estate 35.4% and car dealerships 32.9% against insurance 9.1% (chi-square 159.3, p = 5.8e-8 after correction). Models differ four-fold, from Grok 38.0% to Gemini 9.3%. Citation type predicts naming and citation volume does not: naming responses cite the individual's own site 2.6 points more often (95% CI +1.4 to +3.9) and category portals 4.3 points more often, and cite firm-owned pages at the same rate (44.1% against 45.5%). On nine matched translation pairs, English prompts named an individual in 36.7% of responses against 15.6% for the same question in the local language (OR 3.14, clustered p = 0.074, so the direction is clear and the design cannot close it). A 939-person roster built from public LinkedIn search matched 128 of 27,293 name-shaped mentions (0.47%), 26 of the 939 people were ever named, and the roster-derived rates of 0.0% to 25.4% measure that overlap. Roster-based measurement of individual AI visibility sees a small and unrepresentative slice of what models do.

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.

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.

Citation function classification plays a crucial role in understanding the relationships between scientific publications and advancing bibliometric analysis. This study presents one of the first comprehensive evaluations of multiple state-of-the-art (SOTA) large language models (LLMs) for citation function classification, achieving new SOTA results on the ACL-ARC dataset. We systematically compare five models (Mistral 7B, Orca 2-7B, LLaMA 3.1-8B, Falcon 7B, and SciBERT) across zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning approaches. Our fine-tuned Falcon 7B model achieves a 73.3% macro F1 score on ACL-ARC, representing a significant improvement over previous methods. Additionally, we introduce AC3, a novel dataset featuring a seven-category annotation scheme that distinguishes between neutral acknowledgments and explicit evaluative stances (more opinion-oriented citations - criticizing, complimenting, contradicting). The dataset is implemented across four context extraction variants to systematically evaluate the impact of contextual scope on classification performance. We also provide detailed analysis of model performance, experimental configurations, and limitations to guide future research in this domain. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies dedicated to comprehensive model comparison for citation function classification, addressing a gap identified in recent surveys.

This paper presents the MPR-CiteG framework, which achieved second place in the ScienceON AI Challenge by addressing two fundamental challenges in generative AI: inefficient retrieval and the absence of source verification. We propose a dual-component system, termed MPR-CiteG, in which the Multi-Portfolio Retriever (MPR) efficiently retrieves diverse and relevant information, while the Citation-Grounded Generation (CiteG) module ensures that every generated output remains factually consistent and explicitly attributed to its source. MPR-CiteG represents a significant step toward building more trustworthy and accurate LLMs that are not only capable of generating information but also of grounding their responses in reliable evidence, thereby mitigating common issues like model hallucination. Extensive experiments on the challenge dataset validate the effectiveness and reliability of our approach. Our code is available at https://github.com/2noweyh/MPR-citeG.

Prior case retrieval (PCR) aims to identify the precedent cases relevant to the facts of a query case. Incoming citation context, the text with which later cases characterize a case when citing it, is a powerful relevance signal, yet it is typically evaluated without a temporal constraint, so the retriever is credited with citations made after the query. We introduce a temporally fenced retriever with no learned parameters that augments BM25 with incoming citation context restricted to citations predating the query, together with a temporal-admission decomposition that quantifies the phantom fraction: the share of a citation-context gain attributable to citations not known to predate the query. Experiments span two jurisdictions, U.S. federal (CLERC) and European (ECtHR-PCR) case law. On ECtHR-PCR, without any training, the fenced retriever outperforms a strong degree-controlled baseline across the full recall ladder, and a temporal-admission decomposition attributes 14.9% (validation) of an unfenced citation-context gain over BM25 to citations not known to predate the query. Citation-context retrieval must therefore be temporally fenced and degree-controlled before its reported gains can be interpreted.

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.

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.

Organizations and regulators increasingly consult large language models (LLMs) for regulatory-compliance questions, yet a wrong statutory citation can silently propagate into legal advice, compliance documentation, and policy decisions. We introduce a bilingual benchmark of 120 questions probing whether freely accessible LLMs fabricate article citations for two data-protection instruments: the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Saudi Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL). The benchmark pairs direct citation retrieval questions with false premise verification probes and deliberately unanswerable "trap" questions -- including questions about a repealed article and about deadlines that exist only in implementing regulations, not in the law itself. Every question is posed in both Arabic and English, and all scoring is fully automatic against a manually verified gold reference. Evaluating three freely accessible models (Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-OSS-120B, Nemotron-3-Super-120B), we find a dramatic jurisdiction gap: near-ceiling citation accuracy on the GDPR (94-100% on direct retrieval) against majority fabrication on the Saudi PDPL (60-77%), invariant to query language; the highest fabrication rates (67%) arise from statute-vs-regulations confusion, and 91% of fabricated citations are asserted with confidence >= 0.8. Fabrication tracks the jurisdiction of the law, not the language of the query, and model confidence provides no protection -- indicating that verbatim-verification safeguards, rather than model self confidence, must gate any institutional reliance on LLMs for compliance screening.

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.

AI visibility measurement is comparative: practitioners want to know which domains generative search engines cite most often and whether observed differences are large enough to support decisions. Yet the industry lacks a principled way to determine whether enough data has been collected. Collection budgets vary widely across studies and platforms, and conclusions are often drawn from rankings whose stability and precision are unknown. We introduce a sequential convergence framework based on two complementary criteria: rank stability evaluates whether the rank-correlation trajectory has reached a structural plateau, while structural sufficiency evaluates whether the spread of citation shares among established domains -- those whose confidence intervals exclude zero -- exceeds the uncertainty of those estimates. Together, these criteria distinguish rankings that have merely stabilized from those sufficiently resolved to support inference. Both are derived from regularities in the observed citation distribution, including its rank structure, uncertainty profile, and the boundary between observed and established domains. The framework retains a small number of structural constants but requires no externally specified query count, correlation target, or confidence-interval width target; stopping is driven by observed measurement uncertainty and remains robust across a range of sufficiency thresholds. Applied across 30 platform-topic combinations spanning Gemini, SearchGPT, and Perplexity, the framework adapts to platform- and topic-specific citation distributions. Results show that no fixed collection budget can be justified across contexts and that convergence can instead be evaluated from the structure of the observed distribution. The framework provides a practical basis for determining when AI visibility measurements are ready to support comparative analysis.

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.

LongEval-Sci evaluates scientific retrieval under collection change, where a system should be effective on the current corpus and remain usable as documents accumulate over time. This paper reports both official Task 1 results and development diagnostics for LongEval-Sci 2026. We compare the official PyTerrier BM25 and Qwen3 dense baselines with full-text BM25, additive and router variants, temporal full-text retrieval, temporal+citation retrieval, RM3 query expansion, cross-encoder reranking, and reciprocal rank fusion (RRF). In the official DCTR evaluation, the temporalized full-text runs are our strongest submissions: FT BM25+temporal and FT BM25+temporal+citation obtain the best ARP on all three snapshots (0.285, 0.267, and 0.180 nDCG@10) and reduce snapshot-3 relative change from 0.481 for the BM25 pivot to 0.368. Citation features match the temporal-only variant but do not provide a measurable additional gain in the official summary. Our internal snapshot-1 diagnostics show a complementary pattern: full-text BM25 is the strongest single development retriever (DCTR nDCG@10 = 0.3302, MAP = 0.2853), RRF gives the best deep recall (Recall@1000 = 0.9667), and some uncalibrated overlays can sharply degrade top-rank quality. We therefore conclude that full-text retrieval is the strongest foundation, temporal integration can improve official longitudinal effectiveness when applied to that foundation, and citation evidence still requires cleaner ablation and calibration. Beyond ranking, we also report a qualitative weekly IR-system update-monitoring analysis based on ingestion velocity and stale-coverage drift.

We present an automated pipeline that decomposes Italian tax-court judgments into individual legal issues and extracts, for each issue, a structured XML representation grounded in the IRAC framework and the legal syllogism. The pipeline targets a corpus of approximately $330{,}000$ first- and second-instance decisions of the Italian tax courts and is built around a capable yet cost-efficient general-purpose model (DeepSeek V3), a choice driven by the need to process several hundred thousand documents at a sustainable cost. To address the well-documented unreliability of large language models on legal citations, we couple the extraction step with an automatic hallucination-detection filter that compares the references produced by the model with those identified in the judgment text by a dedicated parser (Linkoln), normalised to standard identifiers (URN-NIR, ECLI, CELEX). We validate the pipeline on $50$ judgments annotated by two PhDs in tax law, computing inter-annotator agreement and LLM-vs-expert agreement on both issue extraction and legal citations, together with a stand-alone evaluation of the hallucination filter. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first issue-level, expert-validated structured extraction pipeline with hallucination control for Italian tax-court decisions, and it provides a concrete starting point for downstream applications such as issue-level retrieval, citation-network analysis, and the construction of large-scale datasets of legal reasoning.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) has traditionally been published in its core disciplinary venues like ACL. However, advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to a blurring of the disciplinary lines between NLP and general Machine Learning (ML), with authors regularly publishing in venues from both fields. Here, we ask whether the disciplinary center of gravity is shifting. Using NLP research published from 2010 to 2026 and studies of both established and new authors, we find that a migration is taking place. First, comparing the pre- and post-LLM eras, established authors lost 19.2pp of share at flagship *ACL main-conference tracks while gaining 14.8pp in the newer Findings tracks, and general ML venues rose 8.6pp, even when adjusting for parallel growth in the fields. Second, among newer authors who debut with at least three first-author NLP-topic papers, the share whose work appears mostly at *ACL venues fell from 84% (2019) to 74% (2024), while the share appearing mostly at general ML venues rose from 5% to 21%. Using causal inference techniques, we estimate that these general ML venues confer a significant citation premium, which influences venue selection. Together, these results point to a significant shift in where NLP research is published.

Many representation learning problems involve directed relations, such as lexical entailment, sentence entailment, ontology hierarchy, and citation links. Standard Euclidean, cosine, and Mahalanobis heads are symmetric, while generic neural scorers can model directionality but provide limited geometric structure. This paper proposes a role-aware neural convex divergence head for asymmetric representation learning. The head applies source- and target-role projections before evaluating an input-convex neural Bregman divergence, yielding a nonnegative structured score in the role-projected space. We characterize its projected-space identity, source-role convexity, directional-gap decomposition, and Hessian-based local curvature. Experiments on lexical, sentence, ontology, and directed graph benchmarks compare symmetric distances, unstructured asymmetric scorers, order/hyperbolic baselines, plain ICNN-Bregman heads, and the proposed role-aware variant. Across ten random seeds on the main semantic and ontology benchmarks, role-aware projections consistently improve directional accuracy over plain ICNN-Bregman heads while preserving zero observed negative divergence rate. The results also identify a boundary case: on large fixed-feature citation prediction, specialized symmetric or hyperbolic baselines remain stronger in ranking accuracy. Overall, the proposed head is best understood as a structured and interpretable plug-in distance module for tasks where directional relations matter.

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).

Spec-Driven Development (SDD) frameworks guide Large Language Model (LLM)-powered code generation through formal specifications, yet they differ fundamentally in how they enforce traceability between requirements and generated code. This paper presents two controlled empirical studies comparing three SDD frameworks: $traceSDD$, which enforces mandatory per-line requirement citations using hierarchical REQ-XXX.Y.Z identifiers; $Spec Kit$, which uses artifact-level traceability through user stories and acceptance criteria; and $OpenSpec$, which relies on post-hoc external trace maps. We measure two primary outcomes across two frontier LLMs -- Claude Sonnet 4.6 (N=20, 4 conditions, 240 implementations) and GLM-5-turbo (N=50, 4 conditions, 600 implementations): $output$ $determinism$ (lexical similarity across independent LLM sessions) and $automated$ $hallucination$ $detection$ $rate$ (TDR). Our pre-registered analysis reveals a consistent, cross-model replicated trade-off: the uncited condition produces significantly higher determinism than the cited condition (Claude: $d=-0.76$, $p=0.003$; GLM: $d=-0.72$, $p<0.001$), while only the cited condition enables automated hallucination detection (TDR: Claude 86.4%, GLM 88.0%, vs 0% for all alternatives, FPR=0% across both studies). traceSDD (cited) significantly outperforms $Spec Kit$ on determinism (Claude: $d=0.47$, $p=0.049$; GLM: $d=0.42$, $p=0.003$) but not OpenSpec (Claude: $d=0.18$, $p=0.44$; GLM: $d=0.14$, $p=0.32$). These findings establish that citation annotations trade determinism for verifiability, and that this trade-off generalizes across model architectures.

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.

When a large language model (LLM) answers a question about a company, it grounds the answer in retrieved web sources, and those sources decide what the model says. Most analysis of AI brand visibility looks at the answer text. This study looks one step earlier, at the citations. We merge three Rankfor.AI datasets covering 128 brands across 12 home markets and 13 languages, and analyse 167,551 URL-grounded citations (189,974 total attribution rows). We classify each citation by domain and source type and measure where AI gets its brand information, by language and by market. Four patterns hold. First, AI grounds brand answers overwhelmingly in third-party sources: 85.7% of citations point to sites the brand does not own, against 14.3% owned. Second, the source base is concentrated and long-tailed: 80% of citations come from about 18% of domains, fitting a Zipf law (alpha = 0.86, R^2 = 0.983). Third, one reference site dominates almost everywhere: Wikipedia is the most-cited domain in 11 of 12 languages, the exception being Lithuanian, where the business daily vz.lt edges it (4.38%). Fourth, the source mix is market-specific at the margin: for 46 Polish national brands the most-cited domain is YouTube, and four HR and careers portals supply 637 citations against 297 for Polish Wikipedia, about twice as many.

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.

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.

Attorneys, judges, and pro se filers increasingly use AI to draft legal documents, yet these tools frequently fabricate citations. Despite predictions that newer models would hallucinate less or that court sanctions would deter negligent filers, we found over 1,000 filings containing fabricated citations -- with this number growing year-over-year. This study evaluates whether AI-based systems can mitigate these errors by automatically detecting hallucinations. We propose a taxonomy of legal citation hallucinations grounded in actual court filings and introduce a dataset of 1,300 brief excerpts containing injected errors. Benchmarking five models in agentic and non-agentic settings reveals that while the latest iterations perform better -- GPT-5 achieves 82.8% recall and a 60.5% F1 score in an agentic framework -- all models struggle with subtle error categories. Agentic verification remains resource-intensive, with GPT-5 averaging 16.9 steps per excerpt. Furthermore, restricted information access limits the efficacy of even the best agents. This gap creates policy concerns, as it disadvantages both AI systems and litigants who lack subscriptions to commercial legal databases. Together, our dataset, tools, and policy recommendations provide a foundation for building and auditing reliable legal citation checking tools.

Self-represented tenants, landlords, and help-desk staff need to be pointed at the provision of law that actually governs a question, with a correct statutory citation. We study this task on the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) and its core regulation, asking the operator's question empirically: is fine-tuning enough, or is hybrid retrieval needed? We run a four-arm head-to-head on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (base zero-shot, LoRA SFT-only, RAG-only, and an SFT+RAG hybrid), scored on citation exact-match (section+subsection) over a small, human-verification-pending real eval set. The base model cannot cite the RTA and SFT-only mis-recalls sections; retrieval is essential and drives hallucination to zero by construction; and the SFT+RAG hybrid scores highest at 0.481 exact-match with zero hallucinated citations. Its edge comes from SFT making provision selection more robust to the higher-recall candidate sets that hurt zero-shot RAG. Notably, this cheap bge-small hybrid matches or beats a pipeline built on bigger, specialized retrieval models (a larger embedder and a cross-encoder reranker), and a larger/improved training set does not help either: strong statutory-citation performance here does not require specialized retrieval models or more data. The artifact zeroes hallucination and clears the lift-over-base bar but does not reach the aspirational 0.70 exact-match target. All results are on a small, human-verification-pending real eval set and are reported as preliminary.

We introduce Darshana Graph, a corpus of over 125,000 text records spanning classical Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain philosophical traditions, drawn from public-domain and openly licensed translations of sources including the Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras, principal Upanishads, the Pali Canon, and core Jain texts. Its distinctive contribution lies in a structurally unique subset of roughly 8,500 Hindu and Jain records in which the same root verse or sutra is aligned across eighteen historical commentators representing five schools of Vedanta and other darshanas, enabling direct comparison of how independent interpretive traditions read identical source material. To our knowledge, no publicly available resource provides comparable cross-commentator alignment at this scale. We present two analyses built on this corpus. First, a transparent stylometric comparison requiring no machine learning measures argumentative style through scriptural citation density, explicit refutation rate, and sentence complexity. It finds a moderate negative correlation between citation density and refutation rate, a marked increase in refutation rate across three commentators in a related doctrinal lineage, and measurable genre-level differences within the Pali Canon itself. Second, we describe a constrained large language model pipeline that extracts typed philosophical relationships between concepts using a predefined relation vocabulary and deterministic post-hoc validation. The resulting graph surfaces cross-school disagreement patterns while also revealing important extraction limitations, including cases where an independent embedding-based analysis disagrees with the graph-derived findings. We release the full corpus, extracted relationship graph, and all source code.

Real-world documents combine text with tables, charts, photographs, and diagrams arranged in diverse layouts, yet existing research on multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for document QA predominantly produces text-only responses, underutilizing these visual elements. We introduce VinQA, a dataset for long-form answer generation where cited visual elements are explicitly interleaved with their supporting text and grounded in relevant document pages. To support this task, we study two encoding methods for feeding raw document page images into an MLLM, along with their visual-element citation mechanisms: (1) Page Encoding, which directly encodes full-page images with bounding boxes of visual elements and treats these boxed regions as citable units; and (2) Modality Encoding, which parses each page to extract text and crop visual elements, encodes them separately, and uses these cropped elements as citable units. In our experiments, we propose M-GroSE, a multimodal evaluation framework extending GroUSE to assess answers along four dimensions: completeness, answer relevancy, faithfulness, and unanswerability. We additionally report Visual Source F1 to directly measure visual citation accuracy. Although proprietary frontier models still achieve the best overall scores on the VinQA test split, fine-tuning open Qwen2.5-VL models on the training split substantially improves their performance and narrows this gap. Modality Encoding is initially more robust for complex documents with long text, many visual elements, and diverse citation requirements. After training on VinQA, however, Page Encoding reaches a comparable level, competing effectively even without the explicit parsing used in Modality Encoding. Finally, Visual G-Eval, an MLLM-based judge, confirms that fine-tuned models insert visual elements at semantically appropriate positions with faithful supporting text.

The "First Proof" benchmark [1] posed ten research-level mathematics questions to the strongest publicly available LLMs and found them consistently wrong-not silent, but confidently, fluently wrong. This paper asks why. Working from the per-question post-mortems in First Proof's Appendix A, I identify four failure modes: citation fabrication (F1), premise smuggling (F2), silent problem reformulation (F3), and local-to-global compatibility gaps (F4). I then audit eight one-shot proofs generated by Gemini 2.5 Flash on Questions 1, 2, and 5 of the benchmark, using two instruments built specifically to surface F1 and F2. The central finding is uncomfortable for anyone who sees retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as the obvious fix: not one of the eight proofs contained a confirmed fabricated citation, yet every single one contained at least one load-bearing claim asserted as a "fundamental result" or "standard argument" with no justification attached. That failure mode-F2, premise smuggling-is invisible to citation verification by design. A premise-audit instrument I introduce flags it at 100% precision (5/5 judge-confirmed flags are true positives) and 50% proof-level recall in this corpus. The taxonomy and the audit together suggest that the right long-term objective is building inference-time pipelines that prevent these failure modes from occurring, not just detecting them after the fact. Index Terms--Large language models, mathematical reasoning, hallucination, premise smuggling, failure-mode taxonomy.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in citation-augmented settings, yet the effect of citation presence on model behavior independent of factual content remains poorly understood. We introduce AuthorityBench, a 220,564-prompt multi-domain benchmark that isolates how citation-based authority signals influence epistemic behavior in LLMs. The benchmark uses a fully balanced 2x2 factorial design crossing claim veracity with citation veracity, the first to do so, across four domains (general knowledge, science, law, and medicine), with controlled variation over 40 prompt templates, four venue prestige tiers, and a country-coded author name dataset. Evaluating seven models on 12 structured research questions, we find that citation presence, whether real or fabricated, consistently increases hallucination rates relative to a no-citation baseline. The effect is strongest when fabricated citations accompany true claims, raising hallucination rates by 3 to 22 percentage points and reaching 35 to 77% in the general knowledge domain, while legal claims are comparatively robust and venue prestige and author demographics show negligible impact. All datasets and evaluation code are available at: https://github.com/floating-reeds/AuthorityBench

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.

Purpose - Quotation error refers to the inconsistency between cited information and its original source. This phenomenon leads to a series of negative impacts, such as misinterpretation of the original research, undermining the academic community's collective understanding of relevant issues, and weakening the accuracy and fairness of the citation-based academic evaluation system. Existing studies have shown that quotation error is prevalent in the academic community; moreover, manual verification of quotation error is not only labor-intensive but also inefficient. Therefore, this paper proposes the task of 'automated detection of quotation errors'. Methodology - Adopting a large language model (LLM)-based approach, this paper improves detection performance from two aspects on the basis of existing research: first, employ the fine-tuning approach for LLMs to detect quotation errors; second, incorporating full-text data of the cited literature into dataset construction, and exploring the optimal scheme for building such datasets by comparing three types of full-text integration methods. Based on this, this paper further uses the TokenSHAP tool to conduct interpretability experimental analysis on the model's prediction results. Findings - The fine-tuning approach for LLMs has improved the performance in detecting quotation errors. Among the different methods for incorporating full-text information, the approach based on using the source abstract yielded the best performance. Originality - The fine-tuning approach for large language models (LLMs) is applied to the task of automated detection of quotation errors, and interpretability analysis is conducted on the model's output results.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic research workflows, but scholarly tasks require high factual precision and therefore expose a key weakness: overconfidence. Here, overconfidence is defined behaviorally as the tendency to produce confident, assertive, and well-formatted outputs even when the underlying knowledge is incomplete or unverifiable, rather than as a calibration gap between stated confidence and accuracy. To examine this issue, we introduce GIScholarBench, a benchmark built from 10,865 papers published in 25 core GIScience journals between 2020 and 2025. The benchmark covers three tasks with increasing cognitive complexity: metadata retrieval, literature linking, and research direction generation. We evaluate Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3, and ChatGPT 5.3 through their native web interfaces under real-world user-facing conditions. Results show consistent overconfidence across all tasks. In metadata retrieval, ChatGPT 5.3 achieves the highest accuracy, but all models still generate definitive titles and DOIs when predictions are wrong. In literature linking, Claude Sonnet 4.5 recovers the most references, but all models show a clear gap between top-ranked retrieval and longer citation lists, suggesting that references are extended beyond reliable retrieval capacity. In research direction generation, AI-generated directions show lower topic coverage, higher novel miss rates, and lower semantic diversity than real future-citing papers. These findings suggest that LLM overconfidence is task-invariant but takes different forms: factual overgeneration in retrieval, unreliable citation expansion in literature linking, and overconfidence in output completeness during research ideation.

As AI systems become more widely adopted, the demand for factual and faithful generation grows. Properly attributing information through citations becomes, therefore, crucial. This work introduces FullCite, a framework that, in contrast to most previous works, generates structured inline citations linking each claim to both its source document and supporting evidence. FullCite proposes three strategies to inline citation generation: prompt-based generation, constrained decoding over a citation grammar, and posthoc span alignment. Using three question answering benchmarks, namely, ASQA, BioASQ, and ExpertQA, we assess citation quality and faithfulness along three dimensions: document-level correctness, evidence span identification, and claim-citation faithfulness. Our evaluation shows that while LLMs are generally effective at identifying relevant documents, they struggle to identify the precise supporting spans within them. This gap suggests that achieving faithful attributed QA will require research to place greater emphasis on precise evidence span identification.

The rapid pace of scientific publishing has made the identification and synthesis of high-impact work an increasingly urgent challenge. We introduce MIRAI (Multi-year Inference of Research trends and Academic Impact), a deep learning framework that predicts paper impact using only it's title, abstract, and publication date. We train MIRAI on the arXiv academic graph to predict 5-year PageRank and citation counts, achieving Spearman's $ρ$ of 0.4686 on PageRank prediction and 0.6192 on citation prediction for papers published in 2021. We propose a research ideation pipeline built on top of MIRAI that produces research ideas oriented towards high impact. These ideas were judged as more impactful than a baseline without MIRAI by an unbiased LLM judge at a 4:3 ratio. We make the 5-year citation prediction model publicly available at https://predict-paper-impact.vercel.app.

Retrieval-augmented generation systems for legal question answering typically retrieve passages based on semantic similarity and provide them to a language model, which then generates cited answers. Prior work assumes that highly ranked passages are most likely to be usefully cited by the model. Perturbation-based attribution methods, such as C-LIME, have been used exclusively for post-hoc explanation. However, on the AQuAECHR benchmark, semantic similarity does not correlate with passage attribution. Within a retriever's candidate pool, similarity-based ranking performs worse than random selection at surfacing gold citation paragraphs. To address this limitation, a lightweight cross-encoder is trained on continuous perturbation-based attribution scores to re-rank passages prior to generation. This approach is evaluated on the AQuAECHR benchmark, using two language models and five-fold cross-validation. The re-ranker substantially improves citation faithfulness and alignment with gold expert answers. Notably, two re-rankers trained independently on different models converge beyond their raw attribution agreement. This finding indicates that the cross-encoder reduces model-specific noise and produces a shared relevance signal that partially transfers across models, although same-model re-ranking remains more effective. These results demonstrate that perturbation-based attribution provides a practical, model-agnostic training signal for citation-aware retrieval.

This paper presents an agentic multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework for domain-specific literature reasoning, instantiated on a curated corpus of several thousand papers in intelligent tires, vehicle dynamics, vehicle control, sensing, estimation, and machine learning. Unlike conventional single-pass RAG systems, the proposed architecture uses an autonomous, evidence-gated pipeline that classifies query intent, generates separate text and visual query rewrites, performs hybrid text retrieval with FAISS and BM25 followed by cross-encoder reranking, expands evidence through graph-guided chunk traversal over a Neo4j knowledge graph, and retrieves visual document evidence using ColSmol late-interaction embeddings with MUVERA fixed-dimensional encoding, approximate nearest-neighbor search, and MaxSim reranking. The framework scores evidence sufficiency using a 100-point rubric with hybrid rule-based/LLM review, retries retrieval through drift-guarded reformulation, searches external academic databases through optimize--search--vet loops, merges and deduplicates multimodal evidence, verifies citation integrity, and generates cited answers through Planner, Researcher, Writer, and Critic agents with self-correcting revision. Key contributions include: (i) a scalable multimodal retrieval architecture combining text, graph, and visual evidence over 40,000 document pages; (ii) an interpretable evidence sufficiency and retry mechanism; (iii) a multi-agent generation pipeline with evidence mapping and critic-driven revision; (iv) a domain knowledge graph with LLM-based entity extraction, OpenAlex author validation, and intra-corpus citation resolution; and (v) a route-dependent external search architecture for targeted literature expansion. The result is a practical, evidence-gated, multimodal agentic RAG architecture for technical reasoning over specialized research corpora.