Enterprises fail to budget for AI-ready data that demands consolidation, governance, security, and indexing. As companies rush to adopt agentic AI to speed up business processes and improve efficiency, AI and data governance are driving up costs.
Data attribution methods for Language Models (LMs) are typically evaluated using downstream tasks like fact retrieval. However, existing evaluations vary multiple dataset properties simultaneously, making it impossible to isolate exactly why an attribution algorithm fails. To diagnose these failures, we explore the design space of LLM data attribution, with a primary focus on evaluation. We introduce the Controlled Attribution Benchmark (CATT) for fact tracing, in which we fine-tune LLMs on entirely fictitious knowledge, providing unambiguous ground truth for attribution. This synthetic setup allows us to systematically alter one dataset configuration at a time, such as document redundancy and lexical distractors. With this configurable evaluation, we demonstrate that redundancy and distractors consistently degrade attribution performance. Rather than proposing a new estimator, we examine two design choices that are underexplored: the loss used to compute gradients and how per-token attribution scores are aggregated into a document score. We find that the true causal evidence within a training document is highly localized, but standard methods dilute this evidence into noise by…
In Nanbeige4.3, we take a foundational step toward pushing the boundaries of lightweight agents. Our strategy centers on building a high-capacity teacher agent first, which will subsequently anchor the distillation of advanced agentic capabilities into smaller models.