Enabling large language models (LLMs) to appropriately abstain from answering questions beyond their knowledge is crucial for mitigating hallucinations. While existing reinforcement learning methods foster autonomous abstention, they often compromise answer accuracy because their static reward mechanisms, agnostic to models' knowledge boundaries, drive models toward excessive caution. In this work, we propose KARL, a novel framework that continuously aligns an LLM's abstention behavior with its evolving knowledge boundary. KARL introduces two core innovations: a Knowledge-Boundary-Aware Reward that performs online knowledge boundary estimation using within-group response statistics, dynamically rewarding correct answers or guided abstention; and a Two-Stage RL Training Strategy that first explores the knowledge boundary and bypasses the "abstention trap", and subsequently converts incorrect answers beyond the knowledge boundary into abstentions without sacrificing accuracy. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that KARL achieves a superior accuracy-hallucination trade-off, effectively suppressing hallucinations while maintaining high accuracy across both in-distribution and out-of-distribution scenarios.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Hallucination rate vs. accuracy on NaturalQuestions (NQ) ( Kwiatkowski et al., 2019 ) . KARL achieves a better trade-off by increasing accuracy while reducing hallucination compared to existing non-abstention and abstention-aware methods. Dashed isocontours represent constant Rely scores.
Figure 2: Training dynamics of response distributions for Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct on NQ under different reward schemes. The plots show the proportions of Correct (green), Abstention (yellow), and Incorrect (red) responses during early training for (a) Binary Reward, (b) Static Ternary Reward, and (c) our method. The red dashed region in (b) highlights a rapid increase in abstention accompanied by declining accuracy.
Figure 3: Distribution of rollout groups across different models and datasets. We categorize sampled groups based on the composition of Correct ( T ), Incorrect ( F ), and Abstention ( U ) responses.
Figure 4: An overview of the KARL framework. KARL utilizes a Knowledge-Boundary-Aware Reward ( KAR ) and employs a two-stage strategy to first explore knowledge boundary and subsequently calibrate abstention behavior.
NQ
TriviaQA
BioASQ
ARC-C
Method
T ( ↑ )
U ( − )
F ( ↓ )
Rely ( ↑ )
T ( ↑ )
U ( − )
F ( ↓ )
Rely ( ↑ )
T ( ↑ )
U ( − )
F ( ↓ )
Rely ( ↑ )
T ( ↑ )
U ( − )
F ( ↓ )
Rely ( ↑ )
Llama3.1-8B-Inst
Prompting
38.7
6.0
55.3
44.3
71.6
1.3
27.1
72.9
55.8
0.3
43.9
56.1
81.7
0.3
18.0
82.0
SFT
40.0
0.0
60.0
40.0
70.2
0.0
29.8
70.2
53.4
0.0
46.6
53.4
77.6
0.0
22.4
77.6
R-Tuning
24.8
56.8
18.4
49.3
55.4
35.9
8.7
78.4
27.9
65.6
6.5
50.5
10.3
87.8
1.9
21.0
RLKF
28.7
30.7
40.6
50.0
57.6
23.2
19.2
75.4
43.3
27.6
29.1
63.3
54.9
5.2
39.9
59.8
Table 1: Experimental results (%) on in-distribution and three out-of-distribution datasets. T , U , and F denote the rates of correct answers , abstentions , and hallucinations , respectively. Rely is a unified reliability score that balances accuracy and hallucination rate. The Δ row reports the performance difference between our method and the Prompting baseline. Green numbers indicates improvement. Best performance is highlighted in bold .
Llama3.1-8B-Instruct
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Method
GSM8K
BBH
GSM8K
BBH
T ( ↑ )
U ( − )
F ( ↓ )
T ( ↑ )
U ( − )
F ( ↓ )
T ( ↑ )
U ( − )
F ( ↓ )
T ( ↑ )
U ( − )
F ( ↓ )
Prompting
83.7
0.5
15.8
64.3
2.1
33.6
89.1
0.5
10.4
67.5
5.8
26.7
Binary
85.2
0.0
14.8
63.2
0.0
36.8
91.4
0.0
8.6
71.5
0.1
28.4
Ternary
85.5
3.0
11.5
53.4
28.1
18.5
88.5
3.0
8.5
61.5
15.6
22.9
Ours
86.1
1.3
12.6
62.5
11.3
26.2
90.4
0.4
9.2
67.8
7.4
24.8
Table 2: Performance (%) comparison on GSM8K and BBH using Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.
Figure 7
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
NQ
Question: What type of database is library literature and information science?
[0.8pt/2pt] Prompting Prompting : Metadata database ( F )
[0.8pt/2pt] Ternary Ternary : Library Literature and Information Science is a database that indexes and abstracts articles and other publications in the field of library and information science. I don’t know its specific database type. (U)
[0.8pt/2pt] Ours Ours : Library Literature and Information Science is a database that indexes articles and publications related to library science, often a bibliographic or index database. ( T )
ARC-C
Question: Farmers in Wyoming were concerned because some of their chickens were being preyed upon by hawks that lived in areas around their ranches. The farmers grouped together and hunted the hawks until they were no longer in their area. Which would most likely happen next? Options: A. The chicken population would go down. B. Populations of mice and rats would increase. C. Another bird of prey would replace the hawk. D. The chickens would have a lower rate of disease.
Appendix
Table 4: Case examples from the NQ and ARC-C datasets comparing responses generated by the Prompting baseline, Ternary baseline, and our method. ( T ) , ( F ) , and ( U ) denote correct answers, incorrect answers, and abstentions, respectively. Models are implemented on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct.
Table 9
Phase I Duration
T ( ↑ )
U ( − )
F ( ↓ )
Rely ( ↑ )
Ablation on Transition Timing
0%
36.0
50.0
14.0
61.0
25%
40.6
40.9
18.5
64.8
50%
42.7
40.6
16.7
66.8
75%
43.9
32.1
24.0
65.6
100%
50.6
18.0
31.4
65.4
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation study on the transition timing from Stage I (Exploration) to Stage II (Abstention Calibration).
NQ
TriviaQA
BioASQ
ARC-C
Setting
T( ↑ )
U( − )
F( ↓ )
Rely
T( ↑ )
U( − )
F( ↓ )
Rely
T( ↑ )
U( − )
F( ↓ )
Rely
T( ↑ )
U( − )
F( ↓ )
Rely
Ablation on Strategy
w/o Phase II ( α=50% )
50.6
18.0
31.4
65.4
74.9
10.6
14.5
84.4
65.6
13.8
20.6
77.5
81.5
0.8
17.8
82.2
Ablation on Mixing Ratio α in Stage I
α=0% (Pure KAR)
36.0
50.0
14.0
61.0
62.7
29.7
7.6
83.6
52.7
39.0
8.3
76.5
79.4
6.4
14.2
85.4
α=25%
42.4
35.5
22.1
65.3
68.2
22.2
9.6
85.5
61.0
22.7
16.3
78.6
82.7
2.7
14.6
85.3
Appendix
Table 8: Extended ablation results across all datasets (NQ, TriviaQA, BioASQ, and ARC-C).
Recent advances in equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) with search tools and outcome-reward reinforcement learning (RL) have achieved new state-of-the-art results on open-domain QA tasks. However, we argue that current training paradigms harbor a critical vulnerability: they predominantly reward correct answers but fail to penalize fabricated ones when retrieval fails, thereby implicitly exacerbating hallucinations. To address this, we propose Abstention-Aware Reinforcement Learning (AWA-RL), which dynamically shapes the abstention reward utilizing the model's query-specific prior capabilities and continuous on-policy training observations. We also introduce a novel metric, RA-F1, to measure the capability-reliability trade-off. Compared to non-abstaining baselines, AWA-RL boosts absolute precision by up to 10.3% and overall RA-F1 by 2.9%, with only marginal sacrifice in raw accuracy. These results confirm that AWA-RL successfully yields highly capable and reliable search agents. The code, data, and model weights are publicly available at https://github.com/zfj1998/AWA-RL.
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. In high-stakes domains, these errors can reduce trust and introduce real-world risk. To address this challenge, we present a parameter-efficient approach that uses soft prompts to mitigate hallucinated content and promote responsible abstention in generative question-answering (QA) tasks. Our method, called Responsible Contrastive Soft Prompting (RCSP), uses a composite loss to train soft prompts that balance three goals: suppressing hallucinatory content, encouraging abstention under uncertainty, and preserving or improving factual recall. To achieve these goals, we incorporate contrastive loss, curriculum learning, and KL regularization into our training mechanism. We evaluate our approach on five diverse generative QA datasets using an LLM-as-a-Judge framework. Experimental results on the Gemma 3 (12B) and Llama 3.1 (8B) backbones demonstrate that RCSP effectively balances factual recall with hallucination suppression and abstention, yielding a generally superior F-score over standard reasoning and instruction-based prompting baselines. Notably, these improvements are achieved by training only a fraction of the parameters required by other tuning techniques. Our results demonstrate that soft prompts provide a modular and computationally efficient path toward improving LLM reliability.
S M Tahmid Siddiqui, Akib Jawad Ononto, Anoop Singhal +1
The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080, USA · National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA
We introduce CAROL (Chain-based Adaptive Reconfiguration Over Lattices), a probabilistic framework for test-time hallucination reduction in large language models. Rather than relying on token-level uncertainty, CAROL defines a semantic uncertainty measure based on the consistency between generated responses and a trusted context, inducing a string-submodular objective over a lattice of textual sequences. This formulation enables hallucination mitigation to be cast as a Markov chain accept-reject process with provable convergence and near-optimality guarantees, allowing the model to iteratively refine outputs toward semantic consistency. By operating at the level of meaning, CAROL unifies hallucination detection and mitigation within a single framework. Empirical results on question answering and multi-agent reasoning benchmarks show that CAROL significantly reduces hallucinations and improves reliability and interpretability compared to likelihood-based and retrieval-augmented baselines, while maintaining competitive computational efficiency.
Joan Vendrell Gallart, Solmaz Kia, Russell Bent +1
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace University of California Irvine Irvine, CA 92617-4322, USA · T-5 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 88220, USA · CAI-4 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 88220, USA