analiza aiqbench
This research demonstrates that training Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) agents with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) fails to eliminate "post-rationalization," where models fabricate citations to match generated answers. The study concludes that accuracy-focused optimization does not inherently improve citation faithfulness, necessitating dedicated training objectives and metrics specifically for source attribution integrity.
Attributable Post-Rationalization in RAG Citations: A Controlled Reproduction and an RLVR Comparison
arXiv:2609.23053v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A RAG system can hand you the right answer and cite a source it did not actually use. Models output these unfaithful citations via post-rationalization: they write the answer first and then attach a citation to whatever passage looks close enough. Search agents are now trained with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR), which pays them for getting the answer right. We asked whether that training also teaches them to cite honestly. Improving an existing methodology with a required control, we compared an instruction-tuned model against three RLVR agents trained from it, on four question-answering datasets, using only free-tier Kaggle GPUs. Post-rationalization is everywhere: on Wikipedia-based questions roughly one citation in seven is unfaithful. RLVR does not fix it. The agents post-rationalize at their base model's rate, and one lands slightly worse. Rewarding correct answers buys nothing in citation faithfulness, so faithfulness has to be trained and measured on its own terms.
Abstract:A RAG system can hand you the right answer and cite a source it did not actually use. Models output these unfaithful citations via post-rationalization: they write the answer first and then attach a citation to whatever passage looks close enough. Search agents are now trained with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR), which pays them for getting the answer right. We asked whether that training also teaches them to cite honestly. Improving an existing methodology with a required control, we compared an instruction-tuned model against three RLVR agents trained from it, on four question-answering datasets, using only free-tier Kaggle GPUs. Post-rationalization is everywhere: on Wikipedia-based questions roughly one citation in seven is unfaithful. RLVR does not fix it. The agents post-rationalize at their base model's rate, and one lands slightly worse. Rewarding correct answers buys nothing in citation faithfulness, so faithfulness has to be trained and measured on its own terms.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)
arXiv:2609.23053 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.23053v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.23053 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 250 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
In open RLVR, “improvement” depends on the instrument — a small GRPO testbed separating what training optimizes, measures, and teaches
LessWrong · 15 iun. 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · 27 sept. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 10 sept. 2026

Introducing Mistral OCR 4
Mistral AI · 23 iun. 2026