We introduce SelfCite, a novel self-supervised approach that aligns LLMs to generate high-quality, fine-grained, sentence-level citations for the statements in their generated responses. Instead of only relying on costly and labor-intensive annotations, SelfCite leverages a reward signal provided by the LLM itself through context ablation: If a citation is necessary, removing the cited text from the context should prevent the same response; if sufficient, retaining the cited text alone should preserve the same response. This reward can guide the inference-time best-of-N sampling strategy to improve citation quality significantly, as well as be used in preference optimization to directly fine-tune the models for generating better citations. The effectiveness of SelfCite is demonstrated by increasing citation F1 up to 5.3 points on the LongBench-Cite benchmark across five long-form question answering tasks. The source code is available at https://github.com/facebookresearch/SelfCite.

How do language models use information provided as context when generating a response? Can we infer whether a particular generated statement is actually grounded in the context, a misinterpretation, or fabricated? To help answer these questions, we introduce the problem of *context attribution*: pinpointing the parts of the context (if any) that *led* a model to generate a particular statement. We then present ContextCite, a simple and scalable method for context attribution that can be applied on top of any existing language model. Finally, we showcase the utility of ContextCite through three applications: (1) helping verify generated statements (2) improving response quality by pruning the context and (3) detecting poisoning attacks. We provide code for ContextCite at https://github.com/MadryLab/context-cite.

Labeling data for modern machine learning is expensive and time-consuming. Latent variable models can be used to infer labels from weaker, easier-to-acquire sources operating on unlabeled data. Such models can also be trained using labeled data, presenting a key question: should a user invest in few labeled or many unlabeled points? We answer this via a framework centered on model misspecification in method-of-moments latent variable estimation. Our core result is a bias-variance decomposition of the generalization error, which shows that the unlabeled-only approach incurs additional bias under misspecification. We then introduce a correction that provably removes this bias in certain cases. We apply our decomposition framework to three scenarios—well-specified, misspecified, and corrected models—to 1) choose between labeled and unlabeled data and 2) learn from their combination. We observe theoretically and with synthetic experiments that for well-specified models, labeled points are worth a constant factor more than unlabeled points. With misspecification, however, their relative value is higher due to the additional bias but can be reduced with correction. We also apply our approach to study real-world weak supervision techniques for dataset construction.