Are Finer Citations Always Better? Rethinking Granularity for Attributed Generation

Citation granularity - whether to cite individual sentences, paragraphs, or documents - is a critical design choice in attributed generation. While fine-grained citations are often preferred for precise human verification, their impact on model performance remains under-explored. We analyze four model scales (8B-120B) and demonstrate that enforcing fine-grained citations degrades attribution quality by 16-276% compared to the best-performing granularity. We observe a consistent performance pattern where attribution quality peaks at intermediate granularities (paragraph-level). Our analysis suggests that fine-grained (sentence-level) citations disrupt necessary semantic dependencies for attributing evidence to answer claims, while excessively coarse citations (multi-paragraph) introduce distracting noise. Importantly, the magnitude of this performance gap varies non-monotonically with model scale: fine-grained constraints disproportionately penalize larger models, suggesting that atomic citation units disrupt the multi-sentence information synthesis at which these models excel. Strikingly, citation-optimal granularity leads to substantial gains in attribution quality while preserving or even improving answer correctness. Overall, our findings demonstrate that optimizing solely for human verification via fine-grained citation disregards model constraints, compromising both attribution faithfulness and generation reliability. Instead, effective attribution requires aligning citation granularity with the model's natural semantic scope.

SciTaRC: Benchmarking QA on Scientific Tabular Data that Requires Language Reasoning and Complex Computation

We introduce SciTaRC, an expert-authored benchmark of questions about tabular data in scientific papers requiring both deep language reasoning and complex computation. We show that current state-of-the-art AI models fail on at least 23% of these questions, a gap that remains significant even for highly capable open-weight models like Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, which fails on 65.5% of the tasks. Our analysis reveals a universal "execution bottleneck": both code and language models struggle to faithfully execute plans, even when provided with correct strategies. Specifically, code-based methods prove brittle on raw scientific tables, while natural language reasoning primarily fails due to initial comprehension issues and calculation errors.