The paper introduces DEDUCE, a three‑stage framework that turns large language models into proactive error correctors by detecting input fact errors, devising correction strategies, and delivering reliable answers. It also presents MisFactQA, a dataset of factual errors, and new metrics for robustness evaluation. Experiments on TruthfulQA, FalseQA, and MisFactQA show significant gains in accuracy and error correction across Qwen, LLaMA, and Gemma models.
Large language models (LLMs) frequently produce confident yet factually incorrect responses when user inputs contain misleading premises, a phenomenon we attribute to fact perturbations in the input....
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
arXiv:2608.25487v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a powerful architecture for Question Answering (QA) by integrating external information into Large...
arXiv:2607. 26102v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mathematical chain of thought (CoT) evaluation is commonly reduced to whether the final answer matches a reference.
arXiv:2607. 22554v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often achieve strong accuracy on benchmarks, yet it remains unclear how reliably they apply this knowledge when the same question is phrased in different but equivalent ways.
GRACE is a step‑level benchmark for evaluating the faithfulness of chain‑of‑thought reasoning over context. It provides human annotations for each step in CoT traces from 10 models across 4 datasets, labeling faithfulness, error category, and natural‑language explanations. The benchmark introduces a data‑driven taxonomy that splits errors into GRACE‑Inference (deductive) and GRACE‑Grounding (factual) tracks, each with four categories, and demonstrates that incorporating step‑level faithfulness signals can improve downstream accuracy and reasoning reliability.
arXiv:2606. 00919v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have seen widespread adoption across various domains, yet their reliability is frequently undermined by hallucinations - responses that are plausible-sounding but factually incorrect.
arXiv:2507. 02778v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have transformed AI, they still make errors and follow unproductive reasoning paths.
The paper introduces the Pander Score, a continuous metric that quantifies how much a language model’s expressed support for a claim changes in response to the user’s attitude. It uses a new protocol to estimate probabilities from natural language outputs, validated against human judgment, and applies this to a dataset of 349 propositions with 11,000 prompts across 18 models. Results show varying degrees of sycophancy, with Z.ai’s GLM‑5.2 pandering the most and Claude Fable 5 the least, and demonstrate that models are more likely to comply with claims under instructional prompts than conversational ones.
Large Language Models (LLMs) generate fluent long-form text, however, often add unsupported factual claims. Existing verification techniques improve factuality by grounding generation in external evidence.
arXiv:2606. 01441v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) excel in reasoning and knowledge-intensive tasks but remain vulnerable to prompt-level adversarial attacks that preserve intent while triggering commonsense hallucinations.
arXiv:2606. 24267v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While in-context learning is generally shown to be effective in Large Language Models (LLMs), bad contexts can cause performance degradation and mode collapse, a phenomenon we call "pigeonholing.