The Attribution-Compression Frontier in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
TL;DR
This work measures 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.
Abstract
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.
