Are Finer Citations Always Better? Rethinking Granularity for Attributed Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01432v2
• Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2026 01:30:09 GMT
• Title: Are Finer Citations Always Better? Rethinking Granularity for Attributed Generation
• Abstract summary: We show that enforcing fine-grained citations degrades attribution quality by 16-276% compared to the best-performing granularity.<n>Our analysis suggests that fine-grained (sentence-level) citations disrupt necessary semantic dependencies for attributing evidence to answer claims.<n>Strikingly, citation-optimal granularity leads to substantial gains in attribution quality while preserving or even improving answer correctness.
• Score: 75.27453112832093
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Citation granularity - whether to cite individual sentences, paragraphs, or documents - is a critical design choice in attributed generation. While fine-grained citations are often preferred for precise human verification, their impact on model performance remains under-explored. We analyze four model scales (8B-120B) and demonstrate that enforcing fine-grained citations degrades attribution quality by 16-276% compared to the best-performing granularity. We observe a consistent performance pattern where attribution quality peaks at intermediate granularities (paragraph-level). Our analysis suggests that fine-grained (sentence-level) citations disrupt necessary semantic dependencies for attributing evidence to answer claims, while excessively coarse citations (multi-paragraph) introduce distracting noise. Importantly, the magnitude of this performance gap varies non-monotonically with model scale: fine-grained constraints disproportionately penalize larger models, suggesting that atomic citation units disrupt the multi-sentence information synthesis at which these models excel. Strikingly, citation-optimal granularity leads to substantial gains in attribution quality while preserving or even improving answer correctness. Overall, our findings demonstrate that optimizing solely for human verification via fine-grained citation disregards model constraints, compromising both attribution faithfulness and generation reliability. Instead, effective attribution requires aligning citation granularity with the model's natural semantic scope.

Related papers

• Reliability-Prioritized Fine-Grained Generation in Multimodal Large [50.26126844186488]
  We show that generating fine-grained descriptions is more error-prone than coarse-grained generation.<n>We propose a hierarchy-aware evaluation algorithm, which assesses both whether model predictions are visually correct and how specific the correct predictions are.<n>Experiments on textscGranFact show that our method improves fine-grained generation while preserving reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-28T19:27:59Z)
• How Do LLMs Cite? A Mechanistic Interpretation of Attribution in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [3.4562767039451674]
  We show how a large language model decides whether to attach an inline citation while answering a factoid question.<n>We show that amplifying or attenuating only those critical heads and eliminating 69% of spurious ones on PopQA without harming answer accuracy.<n>The results reveal a potential disconnect between the model's apparent reasoning and its internal computational pathway.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T07:06:13Z)
• 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)
• GenProve: Learning to Generate Text with Fine-Grained Provenance [14.66501508318216]
  We introduce Generation-time Fine-grained Provenance, a task where models must generate fluent answers while simultaneously producing structured, sentence-level provenance triples.<n>By optimizing a composite reward for answer fidelity and provenance correctness, GenProve significantly outperforms 14 strong LLMs in joint evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T13:30:30Z)
• FineRef: Fine-Grained Error Reflection and Correction for Long-Form Generation with Citations [30.28908306106096]
  FineRef teaches the model to self-identify and correct two key citation errors, mismatch and irrelevance, on a per-citation basis.<n>FineRef significantly improves both citation performance and answer accuracy.<n>Our 7B model outperforms GPT-4 by up to 18% in Citation F1 and 4% in EM Recall.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T09:35:12Z)
• 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)
• Generation-Time vs. Post-hoc Citation: A Holistic Evaluation of LLM Attribution [8.691344810384114]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) must cite human-verifiable sources in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, academia, and finance.<n>We introduce two paradigms: Generation-Time Citation (G-Cite) which produces the answer and citations in one pass, and Post-hoc Citation (P-Cite) which adds or verifies citations after drafting.<n>Our results show a consistent trade-off between coverage and citation correctness, with retrieval as the main driver of attribution quality in both paradigms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T20:39:26Z)
• Preference Learning for AI Alignment: a Causal Perspective [55.2480439325792]
  We frame this problem in a causal paradigm, providing the rich toolbox of causality to identify persistent challenges.<n>Inheriting from the literature of causal inference, we identify key assumptions necessary for reliable generalisation.<n>We illustrate failure modes of naive reward models and demonstrate how causally-inspired approaches can improve model robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T10:45:42Z)
• SelfCite: Self-Supervised Alignment for Context Attribution in Large Language Models [51.90867482317985]
  SelfCite is a self-supervised approach to generate fine-grained, sentence-level citations for statements in generated responses.<n>The effectiveness of SelfCite is demonstrated by increasing citation F1 up to 5.3 points on the LongBench-Cite benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T18:55:13Z)
• Learning to Generate Answers with Citations via Factual Consistency Models [28.716998866121923]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently hallucinate, impeding their reliability in mission-critical situations. This paper proposes a weakly-supervised fine-tuning method leveraging factual consistency models (FCMs) Focused learning is integrated into the objective, directing the fine-tuning process to emphasise the factual unit tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T00:40:19Z)

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.