SemanticCite: Citation Verification with AI-Powered Full-Text Analysis and Evidence-Based Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.16198v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 10:05:21 GMT
• Title: SemanticCite: Citation Verification with AI-Powered Full-Text Analysis and Evidence-Based Reasoning
• Authors: Sebastian Haan,
• Abstract summary: We introduce SemanticCite, an AI-powered system that verifies citation accuracy through full-text source analysis.<n>Our approach combines multiple retrieval methods with a four-class classification system that captures nuanced claim-source relationships.<n>We contribute a comprehensive dataset of over 1,000 citations with detailed alignments, functional classifications, semantic annotations, and bibliometric metadata.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Effective scientific communication depends on accurate citations that validate sources and guide readers to supporting evidence. Yet academic literature faces mounting challenges: semantic citation errors that misrepresent sources, AI-generated hallucinated references, and traditional citation formats that point to entire papers without indicating which sections substantiate specific claims. We introduce SemanticCite, an AI-powered system that verifies citation accuracy through full-text source analysis while providing rich contextual information via detailed reasoning and relevant text snippets. Our approach combines multiple retrieval methods with a four-class classification system (Supported, Partially Supported, Unsupported, Uncertain) that captures nuanced claim-source relationships and enables appropriate remedial actions for different error types. Our experiments show that fine-tuned lightweight language models achieve performance comparable to large commercial systems with significantly lower computational requirements, making large-scale citation verification practically feasible. The system provides transparent, evidence-based explanations that support user understanding and trust. We contribute a comprehensive dataset of over 1,000 citations with detailed alignments, functional classifications, semantic annotations, and bibliometric metadata across eight disciplines, alongside fine-tuned models and the complete verification framework as open-source software. SemanticCite addresses critical challenges in research integrity through scalable citation verification, streamlined peer review, and quality control for AI-generated content, providing an open-source foundation for maintaining citation accuracy at scale.

Related papers

• CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era [51.63024682584688]
  Large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications.<n>We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing.<n>Our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T19:17:39Z)
• CheckIfExist: Detecting Citation Hallucinations in the Era of AI-Generated Content [0.0]
  "CheckIfExist" is an open-source tool designed to provide immediate verification of references against scholarly databases.<n>The proposed tool fills this gap by employing string similarity algorithms to compute multi-dimensional match confidence scores.<n>The system supports both single-reference verification and batch processing of Bib entries through a unified interface.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T20:26:24Z)
• BibAgent: An Agentic Framework for Traceable Miscitation Detection in Scientific Literature [21.872874595027824]
  BibAgent is a scalable, end-to-end agentic framework for automated citation verification.<n>It integrates retrieval, reasoning, and adaptive evidence aggregation, applying strategies for accessible and paywalled sources.<n>Our results demonstrate that BibAgent outperforms state-of-the-art Large Language Model (LLM) baselines in citation verification accuracy and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T16:30:45Z)
• VeriCite: Towards Reliable Citations in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Rigorous Verification [107.75781898355562]
  We introduce a novel framework, called VeriCite, designed to rigorously validate supporting evidence and enhance answer attribution.<n>We conduct experiments across five open-source LLMs and four datasets, demonstrating that VeriCite can significantly improve citation quality while maintaining the correctness of the answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T13:38:54Z)
• Cite Pretrain: Retrieval-Free Knowledge Attribution for Large Language Models [44.31597857713689]
  We introduce Active Indexing for the first stage, which creates generalizable, source-anchored bindings.<n>Experiments with Qwen-2.5-7B&3B show that Active Indexing consistently outperforms a Passive Indexing baseline.<n> internal citations complement external ones by making the model more robust to retrieval noise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-21T04:48:05Z)
• Citation Parsing and Analysis with Language Models [0.0]
  We investigate the capacity of open-weight language models to mark up manuscript citations in an indexable format.<n>We find that, even out of the box, today's language models achieve high levels of accuracy on identifying the constituent components of each citation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T19:06:17Z)
• Unstructured Evidence Attribution for Long Context Query Focused Summarization [53.08341620504465]
  We propose to extract unstructured (i.e., spans of any length) evidence in order to acquire more relevant and consistent evidence than in the fixed granularity case.<n>We show how existing systems struggle to copy and properly cite unstructured evidence, which also tends to be "lost-in-the-middle"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T09:57:42Z)
• Towards Fine-Grained Citation Evaluation in Generated Text: A Comparative Analysis of Faithfulness Metrics [22.041561519672456]
  Large language models (LLMs) often produce unsupported or unverifiable content, known as "hallucinations" We propose a comparative evaluation framework that assesses the metric effectiveness in distinguishing citations between three-category support levels. Our results show no single metric consistently excels across all evaluations, revealing the complexity of assessing fine-grained support.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T15:57:24Z)
• ALiiCE: Evaluating Positional Fine-grained Citation Generation [54.19617927314975]
  We propose ALiiCE, the first automatic evaluation framework for fine-grained citation generation. Our framework first parses the sentence claim into atomic claims via dependency analysis and then calculates citation quality at the atomic claim level. We evaluate the positional fine-grained citation generation performance of several Large Language Models on two long-form QA datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T09:16:14Z)
• Verifiable Generation with Subsentence-Level Fine-Grained Citations [13.931548733211436]
  Verifiable generation requires large language models to cite source documents supporting their outputs. Previous work mainly targets the generation of sentence-level citations, lacking specificity about which parts of a sentence are backed by the cited sources. This work studies verifiable generation with subsentence-level fine-grained citations for more precise location of generated content supported by the cited sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T09:32:37Z)
• WebCiteS: Attributed Query-Focused Summarization on Chinese Web Search Results with Citations [34.99831757956635]
  We formulate the task of attributed query-focused summarization (AQFS) and present WebCiteS, a Chinese dataset featuring 7k human-annotated summaries with citations. We tackle these issues by developing detailed metrics and enabling the automatic evaluator to decompose the sentences into sub-claims for fine-grained verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:06:41Z)
• Deep Graph Learning for Anomalous Citation Detection [55.81334139806342]
  We propose a novel deep graph learning model, namely GLAD (Graph Learning for Anomaly Detection), to identify anomalies in citation networks. Within the GLAD framework, we propose an algorithm called CPU (Citation PUrpose) to discover the purpose of citation based on citation texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-23T09:05:28Z)
• AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence [57.7091560922174]
  We present AmbiFC, a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. We analyze disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T17:40:08Z)
• Context-Based Quotation Recommendation [60.93257124507105]
  We propose a novel context-aware quote recommendation system. It generates a ranked list of quotable paragraphs and spans of tokens from a given source document. We conduct experiments on a collection of speech transcripts and associated news articles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-17T17:49:53Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.