PreprintCited by 3Topic ModelingExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Natural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Source-Aware Training Enables Knowledge Attribution in Language Models

Open access

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) learn a vast amount of knowledge during pretraining, but they are often oblivious to the source(s) of such knowledge. We investigate the problem of intrinsic source citation, where LLMs are required to cite the pretraining source supporting a generated response. Intrinsic source citation can enhance LLM transparency, interpretability, and verifiability. To give LLMs such ability, we explore source-aware training -- a recipe that involves (i) training the LLM to associate unique source document identifiers with the knowledge in each document, followed by (ii) an instruction-tuning stage to teach the LLM to cite a supporting pretraining source when prompted. Source-aware training borrows from existing pretraining/fine-tuning frameworks and requires minimal changes to the model architecture or implementation. Through experiments on synthetic data, we demonstrate that our training recipe can enable faithful attribution to the pretraining data without a substantial impact on the model's perplexity compared to standard pretraining. Our findings also highlight the importance of pretraining data augmentation in achieving attribution. Code and data available here: \url{https://github.com/mukhal/intrinsic-source-citation}

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.01019

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Prior work optimizes citation accuracy via better retrieval or training but ignores when and how often systems should abstain rather than hallucinate.

    “Prior work optimizes citation accuracy via better retrieval [8, 9] or training [10, 11], but ignores when and how often systems should abstain rather than hallucinate .”

Citations

Cites

  • Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines

    Liu, N. F., Zhang, T., & Liang, P. (2023) · arXiv · Cited by 143 · cited 1×

    “Post-hoc approaches (He et al., 2023; Gao et al., 2023a) attribute the LM outputs by retrieving the sup-2 porting evidence given the model’s response, but have been shown to produce non-accurate citations (Liu et al., 2023).”
    Method

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Khalifa, M., Wadden, D., Strubell, E., Lee, H., Wang, L., Beltagy, I., & Peng, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393733730
Cited by
1
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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 › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
knowledge attribution, large language models, pre-training data, instruction tuning, document identifiers, interpretability, verifiability

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