Abbas, Tanzeel, Zia, Tehseen, Windridge, David · Nov 12, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: Cited but Unused: Parametric Provenance in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Authors Tanzeel Abbas, Tehseen Zia and David Windridge argue that citations in can point to sources that agree with an answer without showing that the model used those sources. To test provenance, they replace a fact in retrieved passages with a false variant and query the model again. Across five sizes of one model family and a second comparator family, they report that 1.2% to 15.7% of citable claims came from parametric memory rather than retrieved context. At the most conservative substitution distance, the reported rates were 4.6% and 8.5% for the two models tested at that distance; within one family, the rate rose with model size. They also report that natural language inference verification, a standard way to check whether a claim follows from text, performed no better than chance, even when limited to the cited passage. Comparing ten attribution methods, the contrast between a model’s output distribution with and without context best separated provenance, but acting on that signal did not improve provenance honesty at these base rates. The authors conclude that this detector is not accurate enough to use: it measures what a model knew, not what it used. Separating those remains an open problem.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 12, 2026 (2026-11-12).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-13T08:47:58.240Z. First observed: 2026-11-13T07:39:29.404Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-13T08:47:07.803Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The abstract does not identify the model families or give sample sizes, which limits assessment of how broadly the reported rates apply.
Open question
What method could reliably distinguish information a model knew from parametric memory from information it actually used in retrieved context?
Source-stated
The authors say citations in retrieval-augmented generation can misstate provenance, and that standard verification does not detect the problem.
These citations frequently misstate provenance, and standard verification cannot detect this.
Source-stated
The authors tested provenance by replacing a fact in retrieved passages with a false variant and querying the model again.
a fact in the retrieved passages is replaced with a false variant and the model re-queried.
Source-stated
Across five sizes of one model family and a second comparator family, the authors report that 1.2% to 15.7% of citable claims derive from parametric memory rather than retrieved context.
1.2% to 15.7% of citable claims derive from parametric memory rather than the retrieved context.
Source-stated
At the most conservative substitution distance, the authors report rates of 4.6% and 8.5% on the two models tested at that distance, with the rate rising with model size within one family.
At the most conservative substitution distance these figures are 4.6% and 8.5% on the two models we tested at it, with the rate rising with model size within a family.
Source-stated
The authors report that natural language inference verification performed no better than chance across models, even when limited to the cited passage.
natural language inference verification, the standard approach, gives results indistinguishable from chance across models, even when restricted to the cited passage.
Source-stated
Of ten attribution methods compared on identical claims, the contrast between the model's distribution with and without context best separated provenance; acting on that signal did not improve provenance honesty at the reported base rates.
the contrast between the model's distribution with and without context best separates provenance. Acting on that signal does not improve provenance honesty at these base rates.
Source-stated
The authors say the detector is not accurate enough to use and identify distinguishing what a model knew from what it used as the open problem.
it measures what the model knew rather than what it used, and separating those remains the open problem.
Source and contributor context
Abbas, Tanzeel, Zia, Tehseen, Windridge, David · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Retrieval-augmented generation
A setup in which a model first looks up relevant documents and then answers using them.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 46b33e91-1193-47a3-8bfb-8628005e54ce.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-13T08:47:58.240Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 0513825fd8ab2735224c4bd0847e544883952d7e523185233d73496525c2f4c6. Source text hash: 0db57425db2507555a8d451c506e71923c01f43697f299d7d57e4b95cf4c3120.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-13T08:47:58.240Z
arXiv cs.AI: Cited but Unused: Parametric Provenance in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Authors Tanzeel Abbas, Tehseen Zia and David Windridge argue that citations in can point to sources that agree with an answer without showing that the model used those sources. To test provenance, they replace a fact in retrieved passages with a false variant and query the model again. Across five sizes of one model family and a second comparator family, they report that 1.2% to 15.7% of citable claims came from parametric memory rather than retrieved context. At the most conservative substitution distance, the reported rates were 4.6% and 8.5% for the two models tested at that distance; within one family, the rate rose with model size. They also report that natural language inference verification, a standard way to check whether a claim follows from text, performed no better than chance, even when limited to the cited passage. Comparing ten attribution methods, the contrast between a model’s output distribution with and without context best separated provenance, but acting on that signal did not improve provenance honesty at these base rates. The authors conclude that this detector is not accurate enough to use: it measures what a model knew, not what it used. Separating those remains an open problem.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 12, 2026 (2026-11-12).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-13T08:47:58.240Z. First observed: 2026-11-13T07:39:29.404Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-13T08:47:07.803Z.
Limits
The abstract does not identify the model families or give sample sizes, which limits assessment of how broadly the reported rates apply.
Open question
What method could reliably distinguish information a model knew from parametric memory from information it actually used in retrieved context?
Source-stated
The authors say citations in retrieval-augmented generation can misstate provenance, and that standard verification does not detect the problem.
These citations frequently misstate provenance, and standard verification cannot detect this.
Source-stated
The authors tested provenance by replacing a fact in retrieved passages with a false variant and querying the model again.
a fact in the retrieved passages is replaced with a false variant and the model re-queried.
Source-stated
Across five sizes of one model family and a second comparator family, the authors report that 1.2% to 15.7% of citable claims derive from parametric memory rather than retrieved context.
1.2% to 15.7% of citable claims derive from parametric memory rather than the retrieved context.
Source-stated
At the most conservative substitution distance, the authors report rates of 4.6% and 8.5% on the two models tested at that distance, with the rate rising with model size within one family.
At the most conservative substitution distance these figures are 4.6% and 8.5% on the two models we tested at it, with the rate rising with model size within a family.
Source-stated
The authors report that natural language inference verification performed no better than chance across models, even when limited to the cited passage.
natural language inference verification, the standard approach, gives results indistinguishable from chance across models, even when restricted to the cited passage.
Source-stated
Of ten attribution methods compared on identical claims, the contrast between the model's distribution with and without context best separated provenance; acting on that signal did not improve provenance honesty at the reported base rates.
the contrast between the model's distribution with and without context best separates provenance. Acting on that signal does not improve provenance honesty at these base rates.
Source-stated
The authors say the detector is not accurate enough to use and identify distinguishing what a model knew from what it used as the open problem.
it measures what the model knew rather than what it used, and separating those remains the open problem.
Source and contributor context
Abbas, Tanzeel, Zia, Tehseen, Windridge, David · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Retrieval-augmented generation
A setup in which a model first looks up relevant documents and then answers using them.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 46b33e91-1193-47a3-8bfb-8628005e54ce.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-13T08:47:58.240Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 0513825fd8ab2735224c4bd0847e544883952d7e523185233d73496525c2f4c6. Source text hash: 0db57425db2507555a8d451c506e71923c01f43697f299d7d57e4b95cf4c3120.
passed · 2026-11-13T08:47:58.240Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 46b33e91-1193-47a3-8bfb-8628005e54ce
attribution — pass: The paper is correctly attributed to Tanzeel Abbas, Tehseen Zia and David Windridge on arXiv cs.AI. The reading keeps findings framed as the authors' reports rather than established facts.
Authors:Tanzeel Abbas, Tehseen Zia, David Windridge
summary — pass: The title, summary and question faithfully track the abstract: the method, rate ranges, chance-level NLI result, best attribution signal and the open problem. The authors' force is preserved, including that acting on the signal did not help. Central terms such as retrieval-augmented generation and parametric memory stay exact for tooltips. The opening sentence gives a plain-language framing, and NLI is explained. The question follows directly from the stated open problem. Optional repair: add the authors' structural explanation that a model answering from memory picks a citation agreeing with its output.
We determine that the cause is structural: a model answering from memory selects a citation that agrees with its output.
date — pass: originalPublished 2026-11-12 matches the v1 submission date. The feed date of 2026-11-13 is a later announcement.
[Submitted on 12 Nov 2026]
support — pass: Every claim matches an exact abstract excerpt. Scope conditions are preserved: the two models tested at the most conservative distance, the rise within a family, and the condition 'at these base rates'. 'Not accurate enough to use' closely tracks 'to act on'. The limitation about unnamed model families and missing sample sizes is accurate. No benefits or costs are invented.
The resulting detector is hence still not accurate enough to act on: it measures what the model knew rather than what it used
media — pass: The selected media is the verified arXiv abstract page for this paper. It is the direct original source, and no other candidates were supplied.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
A setup in which a model first looks up relevant documents and then answers using them.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA setup in which a model first looks up relevant documents and then answers using them.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXiv