CITECHOICE: A Causal Audit of How Document Presentation Redistributes Citation Credit in Agentic Search

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15164v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 07:47:47 GMT
• Title: CITECHOICE: A Causal Audit of How Document Presentation Redistributes Citation Credit in Agentic Search
• Abstract summary: CITECHOICE is a causal audit of authentic multi-turn agentic search.<n>It selects 113 same-call document pairs with independently verified support for the same pre-specified fact.<n> structured rendering concentrates citation credit rather than clearly increasing source admission.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: When several retrieved sources support the same claim, an answer engine cites some but not others. We call this decision citation allocation and introduce CITECHOICE, a causal audit of authentic multi-turn agentic search. From 129 everyday-query transcripts, CITECHOICE selects 113 same-call document pairs with independently verified support for the same pre-specified fact, without observing ranks or answer outcomes; blinded human review confirms 103. It runs a hash-verified 2-by-2 replay crossing pair order with jointly generated, fidelity-checked structured and prose renderings of one target while the rest of the transcript remains fixed. Three results emerge. First, and most importantly, structured rendering concentrates citation credit rather than clearly increasing source admission. It raises target citation count by +0.50 citations per answer (95 percent CI [+0.20, +0.84]; Holm-adjusted p=.033), without increasing total citations or reducing competitor credit. The pre-specified incidence effect (whether the target is cited at all) is +4.5 percentage points and inconclusive (95 percent CI [-1.4, +10.4]; p=.168). Second, observational position differences exceed controlled reordering effects: the citation-rate gap between rank 1 and rank 5 is 42.3 percentage points, compared with +7.9 percentage points in the main replay and 0.0 percentage points held out. Third, citation evaluation has a measurable noise floor. Although the aggregate count effect repeats under fresh decoding of 30 frozen families, 15 percent of binary decisions change and decoding accounts for an estimated 45 percent of single-generation family-effect variance. Together, these findings isolate what survives control: presentation can causally redistribute visible citation credit within frozen transcripts. They do not establish reliable source admission, a pure formatting mechanism, or a general rank advantage.

Related papers

• Abstention Errors and Segment Support in CUAD: An Auditable Contract-Extraction Case Study [0.0]
  This paper presents a retrospective, reproducible evaluation of a fixed public RoBERTa checkpoint on CUAD's published 102-contract test split.<n>Of 30,464 returned candidate strings, 19,562 occur on questions with no annotated answer.<n>The system answers 1,335 of 2,938 such questions, a 45.4% false-positive rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T21:26:53Z)
• 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)
• What Would Fix This RAG Failure? Auditing Counterfactual Response with Paired Evidence Interventions [0.0]
  We introduce Pair-ID, an offline audit that holds one query, retrieval state, and reader constant, then crosses two operations, adding missing support and deleting verified nonsupport, to measure a same-failure counterfactual response vector.<n>A complete funnel over 19,981 benchmark queries identifies 11,105 eligible Qwen failures, from which a prospectively fixed SHA-256 ordering selects 1,200 before generating any sampled response.<n>Results show that evidence sensitivity occurs at meaningful rates in the hash-selected eligible-failure sample, is only partially predictable from the observed failure, and is conditional on the reader.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T22:43:27Z)
• When Many Answers Are Valid, Voting Fails: Symbolic Verification for Best-of-K Causal Reasoning in LLMs [42.32694162421078]
  We introduce CALVER, a training-free symbolic verifier that scores structured traces against Pearl's causal criteria.<n>On CLEAR find-one-valid queries that admit multiple graph-valid answers, CALVER reaches 42.1% where plurality, a reward model, an LLM judge, and model confidence remain near 30%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T11:45:46Z)
• When AI Writes, Who Gets Cited? Evidence of Citation Monoculture Across Language Models [45.91367912142692]
  We show that different models may still select the same narrow subset, producing citation monoculture without any single citation being wrong.<n>Eleven models from three vendors choose at most ten papers from uniformly random panels of thirty, with real titles and abstracts but fabricated authors, reassigned years, and hidden venues and citation counts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T14:27:46Z)
• Visual Credit Audit for Multimodal Spatial Reasoning [70.16915309526443]
  Visual Credit Audit separates two Estimands: whether the benchmark image gives the model's declared decision more support than text-only and blank controls, and whether the model responds to relation-specific visual evidence.<n>Applying labels yields dependence-credited correctness (D-CC)<n>Across four open MLLMs and two spatial benchmarks, 12.73-26.25% of decisions are correct yet uncredited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-29T15:55:31Z)
• What Are We Actually Decoding? Source Attribution for Non-Invasive Brain-to-Language Retrieval [42.66754319854329]
  We recast stimulus-locked MEG-to-audio retrieval as an auditing framework.<n>We use structural shortcuts, window-level stimulus-locked evidence, and cross-window contextual aggregation.<n>These results suggest that brain-to-language performance should be source-attributed, not merely reported.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T11:23:39Z)
• Same Ranking, Different Winner: How Scoring Targets Shape LLM Memory Benchmarks [2.9089118242427627]
  Conversational-memory systems transform dialogue history into facts, summaries, timelines, and other source-linked descendants.<n>This raises an underspecified evaluation question: which stored form should receive retrieval credit?<n>We show that this scoring-target choice is often left implicit and can materially change benchmark conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T02:53:07Z)
• Measuring Faithfulness Depends on How You Measure: Classifier Sensitivity in LLM Chain-of-Thought Evaluation [0.0]
  Recent work on chain-of-thought faithfulness reports single aggregate numbers.<n>This paper provides evidence that faithfulness is not an objective, measurable property of a model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T17:48:43Z)
• From Black Box to Glass Box: Cross-Model ASR Disagreement to Prioto Review in Ambient AI Scribe Documentation [43.148402136307716]
  Cross-model disagreement among heterogeneous ASR systems can act as a reference-free uncertainty signal.<n>We transcribed 50 publicly available medical audio clips with eight ASR systems spanning commercial APIs and open-source engines.<n>Low-agreement regions were enriched for content disagreements, with the content fraction increasing from 53.9% to 73.9% across quintiles of high-risk mass.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T13:02:13Z)
• Causal Understanding by LLMs: The Role of Uncertainty [43.87879175532034]
  Recent papers show LLMs achieve near-random accuracy in causal relation classification.<n>We investigate whether pretraining exposure to causal examples improves causal understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T13:06:35Z)

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.