# The Attribution-Compression Frontier in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.14245 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.14245/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation.
- Builds on 24 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- Retrieval-augmented generation / [RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/rag/rag-robustness-and-adaptive-retrieval/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05426/) (2017)
- [A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1508.05326/) (2015)
- [From Local to Global: A Graph RAG Approach to Query-Focused Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.16130/) (2024)
- [FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05355/) (2018)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [Attention is not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10186/) (2019)
- [Object-Centric Learning with Slot Attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.15055/) (2020)
- [Attention is not not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.04626/) (2019)
- [Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14627/) (2023)
- [RAPTOR: Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.18059/) (2024)
- [A Dataset of Information-Seeking Questions and Answers Anchored in Research Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.03011/) (2021)
- [LongLLMLingua: Accelerating and Enhancing LLMs in Long Context Scenarios via Prompt Compression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06839/) (2023)
- [PAWS: Paraphrase Adversaries from Word Scrambling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01130/) (2019)
- [Learning to Compress Prompts with Gist Tokens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08467/) (2023)
- [LLMLingua-2: Data Distillation for Efficient and Faithful Task-Agnostic Prompt Compression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.12968/) (2024)
- [RECOMP: Improving Retrieval-Augmented LMs with Compression and Selective Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04408/) (2023)
- [Measuring Attribution in Natural Language Generation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.12870/) (2021)
- [Get Your Vitamin C! Robust Fact Verification with Contrastive Evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.08541/) (2021)
- [xRAG: Extreme Context Compression for Retrieval-augmented Generation with One Token](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.13792/) (2024)
- [Understanding and Improving Information Preservation in Prompt Compression for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19114/) (2025)
- [The Extractive-Abstractive Spectrum: Uncovering Verifiability Trade-offs in LLM Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.17375/) (2024)
- [ECoRAG: Evidentiality-guided Compression for Long Context RAG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05167/) (2025)
- [Attributable by Construction: Claim-Anchored Provenance for Multi-Document Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.23989/) (2026)
- [SMARTe: Slot-based Method for Accountable Relational Triple extraction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12816/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Context compression reduces generator input in retrieval-augmented generation, but answer quality alone does not characterize citation attribution. We measure citation attribution across compression methods and budgets, comparing reranking, extractive selection, abstractive summarization, token pruning, and an extract-cluster-rewrite construction on ASQA and QASPER under a fixed generator and primary entailment evaluator. On ASQA at a nominal 0.25 budget (achieved compression 0.08), a RECOMP-style compressor's citations score 0.86 precision against its summaries but 0.12 against source spans under our re-attributability protocol. These estimates depend on a shared NLI model for span recovery and citation scoring and lack independent human calibration. Extractive selection's observed grounded precision ranges from 0.43 to 0.49 across nominal budgets from one-half to one-tenth of the ASQA context, while answer quality declines. For the same RECOMP setting, claim verification after source recovery yields an unsupported rate of 0.88 versus 0.17 when checking summaries. This gap persists beyond structural rejection of missing provenance, but remains evaluator-dependent. A 200-question TRUE T5-XXL audit also finds emitted--grounded gaps under both fixed and recomputed source mappings, without establishing human-calibrated support rates.