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.
By Ping Wang, Xiangguo Sun, Bingbing Xu, Guocong Li, Xiaofeng Meng
arXiv:2609.15561v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Evaluating the factual correctness of large language models (LLMs) is vital for many applications. But are our evaluation tools themselves trustworthy?...
By Sarra Gharsallah, Adele Robaldo, Mariia Tokareva, Giovanni Gatti Pinheiro, Ilyana Guendouz, Rapha\"el Troncy, Paolo Papotti, Pietro Michiardi
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...
By Toghrul Abbasli, Kentaroh Toyoda, Yuan Wang, Li Chen
Beyond Answer Voting: Fine-Grained Correction of LLM Reasoning through Graph Alignment across Sampled Traces proposes DDRG, a framework that uses graph alignment to detect claim-level disagreements in reasoning traces and selectively corrects them with a verifier. DDRG builds source‑grounded claim graphs, sends localized conflicts to an answer‑blind verifier, and applies a focused repair only when the verifier supports the majority answer’s path. Experiments on five benchmarks show that zero‑shot DDRG improves macro‑average accuracy by 8.65–15.83 percentage points over direct answering and outperforms CoT, GoT, GoV, and SC on this metric.
ReliableRAG is a new framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation that tackles misinformation in multi‑hop question answering. It extracts structured triples from retrieved documents, evaluates each triple’s reliability by combining semantic relevance to the query with credibility, and keeps only the top‑K reliable, non‑redundant triples. Using these refined triples, the system builds robust reasoning chains that filter out deceptive misinformation and produce accurate, trustworthy answers.
By Jinpu Jiang, Xuan Wu, Wenhao Song, Bo Yang, You Zhou, Hongwei Ge, Heow Pueh Lee, Yanchun Liang, Chunguo Wu
The paper presents an empirical study of factual errors in human-written text, focusing on corrections in newspaper articles to build a taxonomy of common mistakes such as kanji misconversions and unit errors. It evaluates large language models’ ability to detect these errors, finding that even advanced models like GPT‑5.4 achieve only a 52% word‑level F1 score on synthetic data, underscoring the difficulty of the task. The work highlights the gap in research on factual error detection in human writing compared to LLM hallucinations.
By Kazuma Iwamoto, Kazumasa Omura, Shotaro Ishihara
The paper argues that user feedback from real interactions is a valuable learning signal for Large Language Models (LLMs), contrary to recent claims that it is too noisy to use. By creating synthetic data with a clear ground truth and testing on naturalistic data, the authors show that revisions guided by user feedback fix targeted issues more often than baseline revisions. They further reveal that current evaluation methods bias against feedback‑driven improvements, as judges tend to overlook genuinely corrected responses and favor inferior baselines.
By Shachar Don-Yehiya, Leshem Choshen, Omri Abend
PremiseSQL introduces a benchmark of 1,800 flawed natural language to SQL (NL2SQL) queries, grouped into four categories of premise failures, alongside their original valid counterparts. The study evaluates large language models’ ability to critique flawed premises and abstain from generating misleading SQL, using an evaluation framework across three prompting settings. Results show that current models tend to trust premises and rarely critique them, while stronger critique-oriented prompting improves detection but also raises false invalid judgments and reduces SQL generation for valid queries.
By Shuo Lin, Jinzhe Li, Chenlu Guo, Yanhan Li, Yuan Wu, Yi Chang
PROOF is a benchmark that profiles the reliability of object-level facts in instruction-tuned language models by converting a frozen Wikidata snapshot into 18,486 English multiple-choice questions grounded in 11,779 semantic facts across 101 classes, 392 properties, and 14 domains. Each question includes an explicit "I don't know" option, a "No correct option" control, and nine controlled formulations, with 1,849 questions designed as no-correct-option traps. The study evaluates 18 open-weight model deployments on 166,374 prompts, revealing wide variability in factual accuracy, sensitivity to wording changes, and the impact of decoder perturbations.
By Andrei Chetvergov, Mikhail Solovev, Timofei Sivoraksha, Stepan Ukolov, Valeriia Kuschenko, Alexander Evseev, Sergey Bolovtsov
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.
By Kazem Faghih, Yize Cheng, Shoumik Saha, Mobina Pournemat, Armin Gerami, Soheil Feizi
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.
By Hoang Pham, Dong Le, Anh Tuan Luu
arXiv:2608.29286v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evolve into sophisticated interactive assistants, their reliability depends not only on following instructi...
By Jinzhe Li, Gengxu Li, Jinnan Li, Yuan Wu, Yi Chang