Neurosymbolic AI Approach to Attribution in Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Existing work has investigated mechanisms and evaluation strategies for LLM source attribution and citation generation.
“Existing work has investigated mechanisms and evaluation strategies for LLM source attribution and citation generation [4, 5].”
From Abstention vs. Hallucination: Benchmarking LLM Source Attribution for Scientific Citations (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
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
Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines
Liu, N., Zhang, T., & Liang, P. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.467 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines
Liu, N. F., Zhang, T., & Liang, P. (2023) · arXiv · Cited by 143 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Existing solutions, such as Perplexity.ai and BingChat, rely on LLMs to provide contextual responses by integrating real-time web search results, but they face significant limitations [6].”
Attributed Question Answering: Evaluation and Modeling for Attributed Large Language Models
Bohnet, B., Tran, V. Q., Verga, P., Aharoni, R., Andor, D., Soares, L. B., Ciaramita, M., Eisenstein, J., Ganchev, K., Herzig, J., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.08037 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
ExpertQA: Expert-Curated Questions and Attributed Answers
Malaviya, C., Lee, S., Chen, S., Sieber, E., Yatskar, M., & Roth, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.167 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
ExpertQA: Expert-Curated Questions and Attributed Answers
Malaviya, C., Lee, S., Chen, S., Sieber, E., Yatskar, M., & Roth, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.07852 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Abstention vs. Hallucination: Benchmarking LLM Source Attribution for Scientific Citations
Tilwani, D., Saxena, Y., Mohammadi, S., Padia, A., Raff, E., Sheth, A., Parthasarathy, S., & Gaur, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.02228 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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