Verified Misguidance: Measuring Structural Citation Failures in Search-Augmented LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28565v1
• Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 14:54:05 GMT
• Title: Verified Misguidance: Measuring Structural Citation Failures in Search-Augmented LLMs
• Abstract summary: CITETRACE is a dataset that traces the full citation chain from user query through retrieved source to generated answer.<n>We design a three-dimension evaluation framework that scores each citation on intent-purpose alignment, source suitability, and answer-source fidelity.<n>Across our pool, 30.6% of citations distort their sources and 27.1% originate from domain-inappropriate sources.
• Score: 8.721564756242431
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Users of search-augmented LLMs rely on citations as evidence that responses are grounded in real sources, and rarely verify the cited pages themselves. Millions of queries per day now pass through these systems, making citation quality a silent determinant of whether users are informed or misled-yet existing benchmarks each address one facet in isolation, leaving the joint structure that determines citation trustworthiness unmeasured. We construct CITETRACE, a large-scale dataset that traces the full citation chain from user query through retrieved source to generated answer: 11,200 real-world queries from 28 communities paired with 112,000 responses from ten models across five providers, yielding 761,495 evaluable citation pairs. We design a three-dimension evaluation framework that scores each citation on intent-purpose alignment, source suitability, and answer-source fidelity, using expert-validated predefined matrices and a five-level fidelity rubric; the framework applies to any system that produces citation-bearing responses. Applying this framework at scale, we identify a systematic pattern we call VERIFIED MISGUIDANCE (VM): models cite real, accessible sources yet fail along one or more dimensions, producing a fidelity-suitability trade-off in which faithful models select inappropriate sources and vice versa. Across our pool, 30.6% of citations distort their sources and 27.1% originate from domain-inappropriate sources; at the response level, up to 96% of users encounter at least one structurally misleading citation. Provider-level differences explain 88-96% of citation-quality variance, suggesting that source selection is governed more by factors beyond individual model capability than by the LLMs themselves. Together, CITETRACE and its evaluation framework provide the first resource for diagnosing structural citation failures in deployed search-augmented systems.

Related papers

• AtomCite: Verification and Correction of Supplied Page-Level Citations in Multi-Page Documents [21.842813905857863]
  AtomCite parses an answer into claims, checks each claim against the image of the cited page, and applies a deterministic repair policy.<n>It reaches around 93% binary verification accuracy on the injected benchmark, significantly outperforming every OCR-only condition.<n>Its repair policy lifts citation precision on the injected mix from a constructed 34% to 87-90% while retaining over 90% of correct claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-05T01:31:50Z)
• Who is the Agent to Blame? Localizing Faithfulness and Citation Mistakes in Agentic Deep Research [75.8770212601511]
  Deep research (DR) systems produce long-form cited reports by orchestrating multiple agents that search and synthesize information from the web.<n> Citations are the primary mechanism for evaluating the faithfulness of these reports, yet current DR systems exhibit poor citation recall.<n>We propose an evaluation method that pinpoints which agent introduced each error by locally testing agent invocations for faithfulness and verifiability relative to their own inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T09:34:18Z)
• ResearchQA: Benchmarking Citation-Grounded Question-Answering on Scientific Papers [0.0]
  ResearchQA is a benchmark of 6,211 single-paper question-answer pairs from 494 open-access papers.<n>ResearchQA is designed for citation-grounded evaluation.<n>We evaluate eight leading closed- and open-weight models in a citation-grounded chat-with-paper setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T04:26:51Z)
• 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)
• Cited but Not Verified: Parsing and Evaluating Source Attribution in LLM Deep Research Agents [0.18762753243053634]
  Large language models (LLMs) power deep research agents that synthesize information from hundreds of web sources into cited reports.<n>Current approaches either trust models to self-cite accurately, risking bias, or employ retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that does not validate source accessibility, relevance or factual consistency.<n>We introduce the first source attribution evaluation framework that uses a reproducible AST rubric to extract and evaluate inline citations at scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T17:46:45Z)
• Leveraging LLM Parametric Knowledge for Fact Checking without Retrieval [60.25608870901428]
  Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We propose the task of fact-checking without retrieval, focusing on the verification of arbitrary natural language claims, independent of their source robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T18:42:51Z)
• 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)
• SemanticCite: Citation Verification with AI-Powered Full-Text Analysis and Evidence-Based Reasoning [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T10:05:21Z)
• Citation Failure: Definition, Analysis and Efficient Mitigation [56.09968229868067]
  Citations from LLM-based RAG systems are supposed to simplify response verification.<n>This does not hold for citation failure, when a model generates a helpful response, but fails to cite complete evidence.<n>We propose to disentangle this from response failure, where the response itself is flawed, and citing complete evidence is impossible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T07:47:22Z)
• 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)
• CiteEval: Principle-Driven Citation Evaluation for Source Attribution [38.24323805177938]
  CiteEval is a citation evaluation framework driven by principles focusing on fine-grained citation assessment.<n>CiteBench is a benchmark with high-quality human annotations on citation quality.<n>CiteEval-Auto is a suite of model-based metrics that exhibit strong correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T16:15:34Z)
• Document Attribution: Examining Citation Relationships using Large Language Models [62.46146670035751]
  We propose a zero-shot approach that frames attribution as a straightforward textual entailment task.<n>We also explore the role of the attention mechanism in enhancing the attribution process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-09T04:40:11Z)
• 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)
• REAM$\sharp$: An Enhancement Approach to Reference-based Evaluation Metrics for Open-domain Dialog Generation [63.46331073232526]
  We present an enhancement approach to Reference-based EvAluation Metrics for open-domain dialogue systems. A prediction model is designed to estimate the reliability of the given reference set. We show how its predicted results can be helpful to augment the reference set, and thus improve the reliability of the metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-30T10:04:13Z)

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.