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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 .”
From Abstention vs. Hallucination: Benchmarking LLM Source Attribution for Scientific Citations (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
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
HALoGEN: Fantastic LLM Hallucinations and Where to Find Them
Ravichander, A., Ghela, S., Wadden, D., & Choi, Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.71 · Cited by 13
Self-citationCiteME: Can Language Models Accurately Cite Scientific Claims?
Press, O., Hochlehnert, A., Prabhu, A., Udandarao, V., Press, O., & Bethge, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.12861 · Cited by 4
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
“Source-aware training methods [11, 18] teach models to associate generated content with source identifiers, and self-supervised alignment techniques [10] refine citation placement through contrastive learning.”
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)
- arXiv
- 2404.01019
- OpenAlex
- W4393733730
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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