ReCite: Agentic Reasoning for Faithful Citation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09156v1
• Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2026 17:59:50 GMT
• Title: ReCite: Agentic Reasoning for Faithful Citation
• Abstract summary: We argue that accurate citation requires a shift from similarity-based search to active, claim-level reasoning.<n>We propose ReCite, a decoupled agentic framework that orchestrates location perception, intent-aware query planning, and reflective verification.<n> Experiments demonstrate that our framework outperforms state-of-the-art massive generative models in strict citation accuracy.
• Score: 31.917273891035478
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Accurate citations are the foundation of academic writing, tracing intellectual origins and substantiating core claims. However, manually navigating the growing volume of scientific literature is increasingly difficult, prompting reliance on automatic citation recommendation. While modern retrieval-augmented architectures have largely mitigated the fabrication of non-existent papers, current systems relying on semantic similarity struggle with misattribution, often citing authentic papers that fail to logically support the author's claim. To address this challenge, we argue that accurate citation requires a shift from similarity-based search to active, claim-level reasoning. We propose ReCite, a decoupled agentic framework that orchestrates location perception, intent-aware query planning, and reflective verification. Trained on synthesized reasoning trajectories, our agent verifies claim-evidence consistency and triggers self-correction loops when retrieved candidates lack logical support. Experiments demonstrate that our lightweight framework outperforms state-of-the-art massive generative models in strict citation accuracy. By grounding literature matching in verifiable logic rather than semantic overlap, ReCite establishes a reliable foundation for automated academic writing.

Related papers

• CausalForge: A Formally Grounded, Self-Improving Agentic Framework for Automated Research in Causal Inference [17.447741518678374]
  CausalForge is a framework for automated theoretical research in causal inference.<n>It combines Causalean, a Lean library for causal inference, with CausalSmith, a self-improving agentic pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T17:32:35Z)
• DRNOISE: Benchmarking Deep Research Agents in Misleading Evidence Environments [51.049999642138]
  We introduce DRNOISE, a 100-task benchmark for answer recovery under misleading evidence.<n>Each task has a unique gold answer supported by two corroborating indirect record chains; the paired noisy condition adds one plausible document that states a conflicting answer directly.<n>Across agents with strong clean-task performance, this single intervention causes 66-88 percentage-point accuracy drops.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-19T15:20:40Z)
• CitePrism: Human-in-the-Loop AI for Citation Auditing and Editorial Integrity [0.2625927677887832]
  CitePrism is a transparent hybrid decision-support framework for editorial citation auditing.<n>It extracts citation neighborhoods, enriches reference metadata, computes fused relevance scores, surfaces metadata and self-citation review prompts.<n>CitePrism is intended as pilot-stage decision support, not as an autonomous misconduct detector or automated editorial decision system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T14:31:45Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Atomic Reasoning for Scientific Table Claim Verification [83.14588611859826]
  Non-experts are susceptible to misleading claims based on scientific tables due to their high information density and perceived credibility.<n>Existing table claim verification models, including state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), often struggle with precise fine-grained reasoning.<n>Inspired by Cognitive Load Theory, we propose that enhancing a model's ability to interpret table-based claims involves reducing cognitive load.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T02:46:22Z)
• CORRECT: Context- and Reference-Augmented Reasoning and Prompting for Fact-Checking [14.890042094350411]
  We propose a novel method, Context- and Reference-augmented Reasoning and Prompting.<n>For evidence reasoning, we construct a three-layer evidence graph with evidence, context, and reference layers.<n>For verdict prediction, we design evidence-conditioned prompt encoder, which produces unique prompt embeddings for each claim.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T01:41:15Z)
• Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-check Complex Claims [64.81832149826035]
  We focus on decomposing a complex claim into a comprehensive set of yes-no subquestions whose answers influence the veracity of the claim. We present ClaimDecomp, a dataset of decompositions for over 1000 claims. We show that these subquestions can help identify relevant evidence to fact-check the full claim and derive the veracity through their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-14T00:40:57Z)
• 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)

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.