RAG Citation Faithfulness

To prepare for future outbreaks, researchers need to know what studies have been done and what data they use. Mapping a large literature by hand is slow, while large language models alone can misstate or conflate sources. We present EpiLens, a lightweight, open-source retrieval-augmented generation package that applies a fixed retrieval template and output schema to every paper in a corpus and links outputs to source passages. We build a corpus of 2,297 papers from the sources of a multi-pathogen parameter study and evaluate EpiLens's paper-classification workflow against 214 manually labelled papers. Without task-specific training data, the classifier matches or exceeds the tested supervised and zero-shot baselines across four tasks. The study's early extraction sheets cite published sources for 327 estimates. We link each estimate to a cited document or to corpus studies included by a review. Then, we use the classifier's labels to compare the papers associated with different parameters and pathogens. EpiLens labels more papers linked to reproduction numbers than fatality risks as model-based (54% versus 22%, compared with 62% versus 24% in the manual labels). The gap is consistent with the frequent use of transmission models to estimate reproduction numbers and persists within each of five pathogens compared. Beyond the contrast between parameters, the model-based share of papers linked to incubation-period estimates differs by pathogen: 55% for SARS-CoV-2 versus 6% for mpox.

Document understanding is increasingly judged on where an answer comes from, scored against annotated gold locations as if each fact lived in one place. In long visual documents, a fact often lives in several places: a chart value is restated in the text, a key figure reappears in the summary. We ask how often such copies occur in standard benchmarks and what they do to evaluation. We annotate 420 questions from MMLongBench-Doc and MMDocRAG with the locations that independently establish each required fact, checked by two independent reviewers. Copies are common and often cross-modal: 19.5% of MMLongBench-Doc test questions have a strict copy outside the gold, and in 28% of MMDocRAG questions a non-gold candidate alone supplies a required fact. Single-gold scoring then fails in three predictable ways. A retriever that finds a copy is scored as a miss: page recall@1 of text and visual retrievers is underestimated by 13-24 points on questions with a cross-page copy. A model that cites a copy is scored as citing wrongly: crediting equivalent evidence reverses 11% of pairwise orderings among 65 competitive MMDocRAG systems. Masking the gold region leaves the fact available elsewhere: with a copy in the input, 41-56% of correct answers across four models survive it yet fail once every annotated instance is masked. Set-level masking with automatically found copies closes 78% of the gap to masking every annotated instance at matched granularity (three models); an unverified key-string rule lowers survival at least as far but masks three times the area. We release the annotations and redundancy-aware metrics.

Research groups that want a language model grounded in their own literature face a choice between hosted services that receive their unpublished work and self-hosted deployments that keep the data local but give the model no access to the corpus. Munin is an open-source framework for a self-hosted scientific assistant that indexes a group's corpus and its citation graph, and wraps whichever open-weight model the group can serve in an agent harness with specialised reading, search, and computation tools. We claim that the harness, rather than the specific model, is what makes the system useful on domain literature, and we ship the evaluation suite that tests this claim with the software. On 199 paired literature questions, the harness more than doubles the accuracy of the base model, from 0.387 to 0.874 (+0.487, 95% CI [0.407, 0.568]), while naive retrieve-then-answer scores below the unaided model on every backbone tested. Under the harness, roughly twice as many answer claims trace to a passage the model read itself as with fixed top-5 retrieval. When the source paper for a question is removed from the corpus, the system abstains on about nine in ten of the questions it had answered correctly on the Qwen backbones and eight in ten on gpt-oss-20b, and it produces no fabricated local citation across 300 fabricated references. The pattern holds on three backbones from two developers, including a 20-billion-parameter model that runs on a single consumer-grade GPU. With all outbound network access disabled, both Qwen backbones still exceed the published PaperQA2 accuracy. The evaluation suite runs as a single command, so an adopting group can re-run it on its own corpus and model.

In search engines and assistants, long-form RAG answers can mislead readers with claims their sources do not support. Faithfulness rewards, the share of supported sentences, train models toward fewer such claims. We show that these rewards are hacked by copying. A sentence copied from the passages is supported almost by construction, so trained models learn to copy rather than ground what they write. Common defenses only move the hack: a KL or copy penalty leaves copying in place or trades it for shorter, emptier answers and refusals. GRPO, the standard RL algorithm, makes it worse by giving every sentence its answer's advantage, reinforcing copied and grounded sentences alike. We propose Authored-Sentence Credit (ASC) , which fixes both by moving GRPO's reward and advantage from the answer to the sentence level. The reward credits only sentences that are authored rather than copied, say more than the question, and are supported by the passages. The advantage compares each sentence with every sentence sampled for the question, so one that earns no credit ranks last and is never reinforced. Across four models and two in-domain, three held-out corpora, only ASC lowers the error rate of authored sentences and writes more supported ones in every setting, by 38% and 46% at the median under held-out evaluators, giving readers more grounded information. It takes none of these shortcuts, and two LLM judges comparing whole answers prefer no baseline to the base model but rate ASC's answers on par with it. We conclude that a faithfulness reward should credit what a model writes, not what it copies.

A RAG system can hand you the right answer and cite a source it did not actually use. Models output these unfaithful citations via post-rationalization: they write the answer first and then attach a citation to whatever passage looks close enough. Search agents are now trained with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR), which pays them for getting the answer right. We asked whether that training also teaches them to cite honestly. Improving an existing methodology with a required control, we compared an instruction-tuned model against three RLVR agents trained from it, on four question-answering datasets, using only free-tier Kaggle GPUs. Post-rationalization is everywhere: on Wikipedia-based questions roughly one citation in seven is unfaithful. RLVR does not fix it. The agents post-rationalize at their base model's rate, and one lands slightly worse. Rewarding correct answers buys nothing in citation faithfulness, so faithfulness has to be trained and measured on its own terms.

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.

Context compression reduces generator input in retrieval-augmented generation, but answer quality alone does not characterize citation attribution. We measure citation attribution across compression methods and budgets, comparing reranking, extractive selection, abstractive summarization, token pruning, and an extract-cluster-rewrite construction on ASQA and QASPER under a fixed generator and primary entailment evaluator. On ASQA at a nominal 0.25 budget (achieved compression 0.08), a RECOMP-style compressor's citations score 0.86 precision against its summaries but 0.12 against source spans under our re-attributability protocol. These estimates depend on a shared NLI model for span recovery and citation scoring and lack independent human calibration. Extractive selection's observed grounded precision ranges from 0.43 to 0.49 across nominal budgets from one-half to one-tenth of the ASQA context, while answer quality declines. For the same RECOMP setting, claim verification after source recovery yields an unsupported rate of 0.88 versus 0.17 when checking summaries. This gap persists beyond structural rejection of missing provenance, but remains evaluator-dependent. A 200-question TRUE T5-XXL audit also finds emitted--grounded gaps under both fixed and recomputed source mappings, without establishing human-calibrated support rates.

Existing LLM-based approaches to Architecture Decision Record (ADR) generation share a critical and largely unexamined assumption: that input is already reasonably structured. In practice, architectural decisions emerge from informal, noisy meetings where choices are implicit, fragmented, and entangled with off-topic dialogue, precisely the conditions under which single-pass prompting degrades. This paper presents GADR, a multi-agent, self-correcting workflow that extracts architectural decisions from raw meeting transcriptions and generates Nygard-formatted ADR drafts. A feasibility study comprising five real project meeting transcripts, expert review by four senior architects, and evaluation by fifteen students provides initial evidence that the agentic workflow captures most expert-identified decisions and produces drafts participants found clear and useful, outperforming zero-shot and few-shot baselines in stability and structural adherence. The study also addresses the underexplored trade-off of RAG-based enrichment improving ADR depth while simultaneously risking transcript-unfaithful content, raising open questions about traceability in automated architectural documentation that we believe is worth the community's attention.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves large language models by grounding generation in external evidence, but it also introduces a source trust problem: retrieved context may be useful, irrelevant, or even misleading. Existing RAG systems often apply a fixed trust policy toward retrieved evidence, which can either over-trust incorrect context or underuse context when the user explicitly asks for context-following behavior. Therefore, we propose Intent-Guided Decoding (IGD), a framework that arbitrates between retrieved context and parametric memory according to user intent. IGD uses answer-level filtering and token-level correction to steer the final decoding trajectory between retrieved context and parametric memory. We evaluate IGD on three faithful QA benchmarks and three factual-conflict benchmarks across five LLMs, IGD substantially improves factual recovery, achieving gains of up to 65.4 percentage points on factual-conflict benchmarks over Direct RAG, while preserving or improving strict context-following behavior, this findings highlight the importance of balancing factuality and faithfulness in RAG.

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.

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.

We introduce 5ting, our system for the SemEval2026 Task 8 (MTRAGEval), which evaluates multi-turn Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. Multi turn RAG involves context drift, under specification, and hallucination risk. Our system combines BGE-M3 dense retrieval with FAISS indexing, dual-query merged retrieval, and LLM based reranking, followed by role separated generation constrained to retrieved evidence. The retriever achieved nDCG@5 = 0.4719 in Task A, while the end to end system ranked in Task C with a harmonic score of 0.5597 and RL_F = 0.7692.

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.

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.

When retrieved evidence contradicts parametric memory, language models frequently ignore context and default to memorized priors -- a failure that undermines the core purpose of retrieval augmentation. Contrastive decoding amplifies the context-conditioned output to suppress parametric bias, but existing methods rest on an implicit assumption that this bias is uniform across tokens. A single global contrastive weight over-penalizes safe tokens while leaving genuinely conflicted ones insufficiently corrected. We identify token-level conflict concentration: retrieval-memory tension is sharply heterogeneous, concentrated on a small fraction of answer-critical decoding steps. This reframes contrastive decoding from how much contrast to apply to where to apply it. We propose FIDES (Faithful Inference via Deep Evidence Signals), a training-free decoder that reads three internal signals probing retrieval-memory conflict at complementary depths -- output surface, hidden representations, and prediction trajectory -- and fuses them to govern intervention strength at each decoding step. Across three benchmarks and six backbones -- four primary 7B/8B models and two scaling backbones up to 70B -- FIDES achieves the best context fidelity in all 18 settings, outperforming the strongest training-free baseline by +3 to +13 points. On the 70B scale, fidelity reaches 92-94% while F1 surges to 62-63%, demonstrating that token-level selectivity unlocks generation capability that coarse contrastive rules suppress.

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.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) significantly improves the factuality of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet standard pipelines often lack mechanisms to verify inter- mediate reasoning, leaving them vulnerable to hallucinations in high-stakes domains. To address this, we propose a domain-specific RAG framework that integrates explicit rea- soning and faithfulness verification. Our architecture augments standard retrieval with neural query rewriting, BGE-based cross-encoder reranking, and a rationale generation module that grounds sub-claims in specific evidence spans. We further introduce an eight-category verification taxonomy that enables fine-grained assessment of rationale faithfulness, distinguishing between explicit and implicit support patterns to facilitate structured error diagnosis. We evaluate this framework on the BioASQ and PubMedQA benchmarks, specifically analyzing the impact of dynamic in-context learning and rerank- ing under constrained token budgets. Experiments demonstrate that explicit rationale generation improves accuracy over vanilla RAG baselines, while dynamic demonstration selection combined with robust reranking yields further gains in few-shot settings. Using Llama-3-8B-Instruct, our approach achieves 89.1% on BioASQ-Y/N and 73.0% on Pub- MedQA, competitive with systems using significantly larger models. Additionally, we perform a pilot study combining human expert assessment with LLM-based verification to explore how explicit rationale generation improves system transparency and enables more detailed diagnosis of retrieval failures in biomedical question answering.

We introduce a new generation of small reasoning models for RAG, search, and source summarization. Pleias-RAG-350m and Pleias-RAG-1B are mid-trained on a large synthetic dataset emulating the retrieval of a wide variety of multilingual open sources from the Common Corpus. They provide native support for citation and grounding with literal quotes and reintegrate multiple features associated with RAG workflows, such as query routing, query reformulation, and source reranking. Pleias-RAG-350m and Pleias-RAG-1B outperform SLMs below 4 billion parameters on standardized RAG benchmarks (HotPotQA, 2wiki) and are competitive with popular larger models, including Qwen-2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, and Gemma-3-4B. They are the only SLMs to date maintaining consistent RAG performance across leading European languages and ensuring systematic reference grounding for statements. Due to their size and ease of deployment on constrained infrastructure and higher factuality by design, the models unlock a range of new use cases for generative AI.