Cited by 10Topic ModelingExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge

Neurosymbolic AI Approach to Attribution in Large Language Models

Open access
Tilwani, Deepa, Venkataramanan, Revathy, Sheth, Amit P.·2024·IEEE Intelligent Systems

Abstract

Attribution in large language models (LLMs) remains a significant challenge, particularly in ensuring the factual accuracy and reliability of the generated outputs. Current methods for citation or attribution, such as those employed by tools like Perplexity.ai and Bing-Search-integrated LLMs, attempt to ground responses by providing real-time search results and citations. However, so far, these approaches suffer from issues such as hallucinations; biases; surface-level relevance matching; and the complexity of managing vast, unfiltered knowledge sources. While tools like Perplexity.ai dynamically integrate Web-based information and citations, they often rely on inconsistent sources, such as blog posts or unreliable sources, which limits their overall reliability. We explain that these challenges can be mitigated by integrating neurosymbolic AI (NesyAI), which combines the strengths of neural networks, with structured symbolic reasoning. NesyAI offers transparent, interpretable, and dynamic reasoning processes, addressing the limitations of current attribution methods by incorporating structured symbolic knowledge with flexible, neural-based learning. This article explores how NesyAI frameworks can enhance existing attribution models, offering more reliable, interpretable, and adaptable systems for LLMs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/mis.2024.3477108

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. 10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.37 · DOI
  2. 10.18653/v1/2023.nllp-1.22 · DOI
  3. 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.28 · DOI
  4. 10.1109/mis.2023.3268724 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/aaai.12149 · DOI
  6. 10.1109/mis.2024.3366669 · DOI
  7. 10.1007/978-3-031-25891-6_38 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tilwani, D., Venkataramanan, R., & Sheth, A. P.
Affiliations
University of South Carolina (US)
Venue
IEEE Intelligent Systems
Published
2024-11
Volume
39
Issue
6
Pages
10-17
ISSN
  • 1541-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-1294
OpenAlex
W4405022252
Cited by
10
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Intelligent Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2335967)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Keywords
neuro-symbolic AI, large language models, attribution, citation generation, hallucination mitigation, factual accuracy, symbolic reasoning, interpretability, Perplexity AI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review