aiqbench analysis
This research identifies a critical vulnerability in Retrieval-Augmented Generation where standard faithfulness metrics incentivize models to copy source text rather than genuinely grounding answers. The authors introduce Authored-Sentence Credit (ASC), a novel reinforcement learning reward mechanism that distinguishes between copied and authored content to significantly reduce hallucination rates. By shifting credit assignment to the sentence level, this method forces models to generate more supported information without resorting to defensive shortcuts like refusals or empty responses.
Copying Is Not Grounding: Training Faithful Long-Form RAG with Authored-Sentence Credit
arXiv:2610.18442v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In search engines and assistants, long-form RAG answers can mislead readers with claims their sources do not support. Faithfulness rewards, the share of supported sentences, train models toward fewer such claims. We show that these rewards are hacked by copying. A sentence copied from the passages is supported almost by construction, so trained models learn to copy rather than ground what they write. Common defenses only move the hack: a KL or copy penalty leaves copying in place or trades it for shorter, emptier answers and refusals. GRPO, the standard RL algorithm, makes it worse by giving every sentence its answer's advantage, reinforcing copied and grounded sentences alike. We propose Authored-Sentence Credit (ASC) , which fixes both by moving GRPO's reward and advantage from the answer to the sentence level. The reward credits only sentences that are authored rather than copied, say more than the question, and are supported by the passages. The advantage compares each sentence with every sentence sampled for the question, so one that earns no credit ranks last and is never reinforced. Across four models and two in-domain, three held-out corpora, only ASC lowers the error rate of authored sentences and writes more supported ones in every setting, by 38% and 46% at the median under held-out evaluators, giving readers more grounded information. It takes none of these shortcuts, and two LLM judges comparing whole answers prefer no baseline to the base model but rate ASC's answers on par with it. We conclude that a faithfulness reward should credit what a model writes, not what it copies.
Abstract:In search engines and assistants, long-form RAG answers can mislead readers with claims their sources do not support. Faithfulness rewards, the share of supported sentences, train models toward fewer such claims. We show that these rewards are hacked by copying. A sentence copied from the passages is supported almost by construction, so trained models learn to copy rather than ground what they write. Common defenses only move the hack: a KL or copy penalty leaves copying in place or trades it for shorter, emptier answers and refusals. GRPO, the standard RL algorithm, makes it worse by giving every sentence its answer's advantage, reinforcing copied and grounded sentences alike. We propose Authored-Sentence Credit (ASC) , which fixes both by moving GRPO's reward and advantage from the answer to the sentence level. The reward credits only sentences that are authored rather than copied, say more than the question, and are supported by the passages. The advantage compares each sentence with every sentence sampled for the question, so one that earns no credit ranks last and is never reinforced. Across four models and two in-domain, three held-out corpora, only ASC lowers the error rate of authored sentences and writes more supported ones in every setting, by 38% and 46% at the median under held-out evaluators, giving readers more grounded information. It takes none of these shortcuts, and two LLM judges comparing whole answers prefer no baseline to the base model but rate ASC's answers on par with it. We conclude that a faithfulness reward should credit what a model writes, not what it copies.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.18442 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.18442v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.18442 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 356 words
Related coverage

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026

Gemini 3.6 Flash Is Here: The Efficiency Release
Analytics Vidhya · Jul 22, 2026
What's Continual Learning, and Why Might We Expect To See It In Advanced LLM Agents?
LessWrong · Jun 12, 2026
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026