Attribution in Scientific Literature: New Benchmark and Methods

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate citation-backed responses, yet citation hallucination remains a major challenge for trustworthy scientific information access. We introduce REASONS, a benchmark of 12,723 sentence-level citation instances spanning 12 arXiv subject categories, designed to evaluate scientific citation attribution under varying evidence conditions. We propose a dual-metric framework consisting of Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR) to characterize the trade-off between reliability and responsiveness. Using author-attribution and title-attribution tasks, we evaluate proprietary and open-source LLMs under zero-context, metadata-augmented, cascaded metadata-augmented prompting (CMP), retrieval-augmented, and adversarial settings. Advanced RAG lowers HR relative to Naive RAG (65.4% vs. 87.6%) but reduces AR from 5.0% to 0%. Under adversarial metadata, several systems exceed 85% HR, while retrieval-augmented variants frequently maintain near-zero abstention. Human evaluation of 1,000 outputs ($κ=0.78$) finds a 12.7:1 ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases. Our findings demonstrate that citation attribution systems should be evaluated not only for correctness but also for their ability to abstain appropriately under uncertainty. REASONS provides a benchmark and evaluation framework for studying attribution reliability in citation generation.