CAGE: Cognitive Attribution Graphs for Faithful Inline Citation Generation in Long-Form Question Answering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24236v2
• Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:01:56 GMT
• Title: CAGE: Cognitive Attribution Graphs for Faithful Inline Citation Generation in Long-Form Question Answering
• Abstract summary: We propose CAGE, a framework that introduces an explicit cognitive attribution map before answer generation.<n>CAGE achieves state-of-the-art performance, demonstrating the effectiveness of attribution-space contraction and map-guided citation generation.
• Score: 27.49652522104852
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Navigating Sparse Evidence: Agentic Visual RAG via Explicit Context Selection and Consolidation [50.92223196290564]
  We propose a unified agent loop for explicit evidence selection and consolidation.<n>During exploration, SCoRE retains only query-relevant observations and their source pointers in a maintained textual ledger.<n>At termination, it reloads the referenced original images and consolidates the visual evidence for answering, arranging it into a logical sequence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T16:11:35Z)
• SAGE: From Direct Answering to Evidence-Grounded Inference for Chinese Ancient Document Understanding [61.02068339726333]
  We propose SAGE, an evidence-grounded multi-agent framework for Chinese ancient document understanding.<n>SAGE coordinates specialized agents for task-aware planning, tool-mediated evidence acquisition, claim-level verification, and bounded replanning.<n> Experiments on the AncientDoc benchmark show that SAGE consistently outperforms matched direct-answering baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T03:01:51Z)
• 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)
• Explicit Evidence Grounding via Structured Inline Citation Generation [22.27784103991804]
  FullCite is a framework that generates structured inline citations linking each claim to both its source document and supporting evidence.<n>We assess citation quality and faithfulness along three dimensions: document-level correctness, evidence span identification, and claim-citation faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T10:42:10Z)
• Citation-Closure Retrieval and Per-Rule Attribution for Real-World Regulatory Compliance Question Answering [54.97384993676565]
  We formalize Regulatory Compliance QA with RegOps-Bench, a novel benchmark featuring an Operational Knowledge Graph derived from complex national R&D regulations.<n>RefWalk traverses cross-document citations, fuses multi-view candidates via max-based aggregation, and enforces per-rule attribution to explicitly map claims to sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T10:38:38Z)
• 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)
• Concise and Sufficient Sub-Sentence Citations for Retrieval-Augmented Generation [28.229130944067787]
  In RAG question answering systems, generating citations for large language model (LLM) outputs enhances verifiability and helps users identify potential hallucinations.<n>First, the citations are typically provided at the sentence or even paragraph level.<n>Second, sentence-level citations may omit information that is essential for verifying the output, forcing users to read the surrounding context.<n>We propose generating sub-sentence citations that are both concise and sufficient, thereby reducing the effort required by users to confirm the correctness of the generated output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T07:50:30Z)
• WebWeaver: Structuring Web-Scale Evidence with Dynamic Outlines for Open-Ended Deep Research [73.58638285105971]
  This paper tackles textbfopen-ended deep research (OEDR), a complex challenge where AI agents must synthesize vast web-scale information into insightful reports.<n>We introduce textbfWebWeaver, a novel dual-agent framework that emulates the human research process.<n>Our framework establishes a new state-of-the-art across major OEDR benchmarks, including DeepResearch Bench, DeepConsult, and DeepResearchGym.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-16T17:57:21Z)
• 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)
• GERE: Generative Evidence Retrieval for Fact Verification [57.78768817972026]
  We propose GERE, the first system that retrieves evidences in a generative fashion. The experimental results on the FEVER dataset show that GERE achieves significant improvements over the state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-12T03:49:35Z)
• Graph-based Retrieval for Claim Verification over Cross-Document Evidence [0.6853165736531939]
  We conjecture that a graph-based approach can be beneficial to identify fragmented evidence. We tested this hypothesis by building, over the whole corpus, a large graph that interconnects text portions by means of mentioned entities. Our experiments show that leveraging on a graph structure is beneficial in identifying a reasonably small portion of passages related to a claim.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-13T14:54:26Z)

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.