Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance across many tasks but remain prone to hallucination, especially in long-form generation where redundant retrieved contexts and lengthy reasoning chains amplify factual errors. Recent studies highlight a critical phenomenon: the closer key information appears to the model outputs, the higher the factual accuracy. However, existing retrieval-augmented language models (RALMs) lack effective mechanisms to ensure this proximity - external evidence is injected into reasoning via multi-turn retrieval, but this cannot ensure key information stays close to the outputs. We propose Micro-Macro Retrieval (M2R), a novel retrieve-while-generate framework to fill this gap. At the macro level, M2R retrieves coarse-grained evidence from external sources; at the micro level, it extracts essential results from a key information repository built during reasoning and reuses them while generating answers. This design directly addresses the key-information-to-output proximity bottleneck, effectively reducing hallucination in long-form tasks. M2R is trained with a curriculum learning-based reinforcement learning strategy using customized rule-based rewards, enabling stable acquisition of retrieval and grounding skills. Extensive experiments across different benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of M2R, especially in lengthy-context settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the M 2 R framework. During the reasoning phase, M 2 R performs macro retrieval and stores answer-aligned facts into an internal key-information repository. During the answer phase, the model invokes micro retrieval to fetch the stored facts and place them close to the generated answer tokens.
Model
HotpotQA
2Wiki
MuSiQue
Bamboogle
EM
LJ
EM
LJ
EM
LJ
EM
LJ
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
Naive Generation
12.05
18.45
10.09
19.79
2.62
6.08
5.01
8.50
Naive RAG
21.04
37.23
13.82
23.08
4.14
10.32
14.43
20.00
Iter-RetGen
24.63
42.22
14.75
28.86
6.91
13.43
16.03
22.61
IRCoT
23.63
40.60
12.50
23.54
4.39
10.83
17.60
26.13
Table 1: Exact Match (EM, %) and LLM-as-a-Judge (LJ, %) results on multi-hop question answering benchmarks. The best results are highlighted in bold.
Figure 2: Performance on HotpotQA under multi-question inference settings. Here, HotpotQA-2Q denotes concatenating two questions into a single inference instance.
Variant
EM (%)
LJ (%)
Full M 2 R
24.12
35.44
- One-shot Grounding
23.38
34.72
Table 2: Ablation study on M 2 R.
Figure 3: Reward dynamics of M 2 R during reinforcement learning.
Dataset
Think
Answer
Total
Min
Max
HotpotQA
3.7
1.4
5.1
3
6
2Wiki
4.5
1.7
6.2
3
10
MuSiQue
5.7
1.9
7.6
4
9
Bamboogle
3.5
1.3
4.8
2
6
Table 3: Average number of model invocations per query.
Dataset
Avg Invocations
Inference Time (s)
HotpotQA
5.1
≈ 4.7
2Wiki
6.2
≈ 5.2
MuSiQue
7.6
≈ 6.8
Bamboogle
4.8
≈ 4.6
Table 4: Measured inference time of M 2 R (Qwen2.5-3B + SGLang, 4 × A100).
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Effect of answer position on model accuracy (figure taken from Liu et al. (2023) ). Accuracy declines sharply as the answer-bearing evidence appears in the middle of the context.
Prompt Template
You will be given a question and its ground truth answer list where each item can be a ground truth answer. Provided a pred_answer, you need to judge if the pred_answer correctly answers the question based on the ground truth answer list. You should first give your rationale for the judgement, and then give your judgement result (i.e., correct or incorrect). Here is the criteria for the judgement: 1. The pred_answer doesn’t need to be exactly the same as any of the ground truth answers, but should be semantically same for the question. 2. Each item in the ground truth answer list can be viewed as a ground truth answer for the question, and the pred_answer should be semantically same to at least one of them. question: {question} ground truth answers: {gt_answer} pred_answer: {pred_answer} The output should in the following json format: json { "rationale": "your rationale for the judgement, as a text", "judgement": "your judgement result, can only be ` correct ` or ` incorrect ` " } Your output:
Appendix
Table 5: Prompt for LLM-as-a-Judge.
Parameter
Value
Learning Rate
1e-6
Train Batch Size
256
Number of Training Epochs
2
Number of Rollout
5
Rollout Temperature
1.0
KL Loss Coefficient
0.001
Appendix
Table 6: Implementation details of M 2 R .
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Method
HotpotQA
2Wiki
MuSiQue
Bamboogle
Naive Generation
18.1
24.7
4.4
11.6
Naive RAG
34.2
31.3
9.8
20.9
COFT
38.4
39.5
15.8
32.5
SURE
39.3
42.0
18.7
37.8
ReSearch
42.2
45.8
20.9
43.1
Appendix
Table 7: Exact Match results on additional model families.
Method
HotpotQA-3Q
2Wiki-3Q
MuSiQue-3Q
Bamboogle-3Q
Naive Generation
13.1
17.5
4.3
7.1
Naive RAG
20.6
16.9
5.1
15.2
COFT
24.5
27.2
12.6
22.0
SURE
28.3
31.5
11.3
25.5
ReSearch
30.2
33.9
14.2
28.0
M 2 R
32.0
35.8
17.9
30.6
Appendix
Table 8: Performance under multi-question reasoning (3Q and 5Q).
Retrieve-Top- k
Naive RAG
ReSearch
M 2 R
3
13.5
37.2
38.3
5 (default)
13.8
38.9
40.1
8
13.6
38.0
39.4
Appendix
Table 9: Ablations on retrieve-top- k and chunk size for FlashRAG.
Dataset
Input Tokens
Output Tokens (ReSearch)
Output Tokens (M 2 R)
HotpotQA
25
416
432
MuSiQue
31
483
505
2Wiki
37
440
478
Bamboogle
21
376
389
Appendix
Table 10: Token statistics during inference. M 2 R produces slightly longer outputs due to micro retrieval, but the inserted key facts are compact and answer-aligned, improving grounding and final accuracy.
Inference Time (s)
HotpotQA
2Wiki
MuSiQue
Bamboogle
ReSearch
≈ 4.3
≈ 4.8
≈ 6.3
≈ 4.2
M 2 R
≈ 4.7
≈ 5.2
≈ 6.8
≈ 4.6
Appendix
Table 11: Measured inference latency of M 2 R compared to ReSearch.
Setting
Avg Invocations
Inference Time (s)
1Q
7.6
≈ 6.8
2Q
13.8
≈ 14.1
3Q
19.7
≈ 22.3
Appendix
Table 12: Latency scaling under multi-question reasoning.
Dataset
Avg Tokens
Min
Max
HotpotQA
62
24
108
2Wiki
73
28
121
MuSiQue
88
32
139
Bamboogle
55
18
95
Appendix
Table 13: Size of the key-information repository measured in tokens.
Training Strategy
HotpotQA
2Wiki
MuSiQue
Bamboogle
Naive RAG
21.0
13.8
4.1
14.3
Direct Optimization
13.2
8.4
3.9
10.8
Curriculum Learning (ours)
38.7
40.1
20.9
39.6
Appendix
Table 14: Comparison of training strategies, showing the importance of curriculum learning.
Question: Guest 101 wants to book any available suite room and needs to know both the total price after VIP discount and the room number with the lowest payable amount.
Answer: 180.0, Room 301
<think> First, I need to find an available suite room. Then I will calculate the price and apply the VIP discount for Guest 101. </think>
Table 15: A simplified case study of M 2 R on a test instance.
Prompt Template For M 2 R
You are a helpful assistant. The assistant first thinks about the reasoning process in the mind and then provides the user with the answer. During the reasoning process, you have access to a set of tools you can use to assist with the user query, referred to as macro retrievals . These macro retrievals are enclosed within <macro_tool_call></macro_tool_call> tags. You may conduct multiple rounds of function calls, and in each round, you can call one or more functions. The results of the macro function calls will be given back to you after execution, and you can continue to call functions until you get the final answer for the user’s question. Additionally, during the reasoning process, whenever you obtain the answer to the user’s question, you must store it as a key-value pair in a key information dictionary using the <key_info_save></key_info_save> tag. • The format must strictly follow JSON, e.g.: {"target_value": "value"} • The stored key-value pairs must be directly relevant to the final answer. Finally, once you have obtained the answer and stored the key information, proceed to the answering phase. At this stage, do not call any further functions. Before writing the final answer sentence, you must first perform micro retrieval to fetch the answer from the key information dictionary. The final answer must be based only on the results of micro retrieval, rather than answering independently. Notes for micro retrieval: • Micro retrieval must be enclosed within <micro_tool_call></micro_tool_call> tags. • You may query multiple items at once or issue requests in batches. • The results of micro retrieval will be provided after execution. • If the micro retrieval fails, you must simply state that the result could not be retrieved, and must not fabricate an answer independently. Every value from the key information dictionary that appears in the final answer must be enclosed in \boxed{}.
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in open-ended text generation, yet they remain prone to hallucinating incorrect or unsupported content, which undermines their reliability. This issue is exacerbated in long-form generation due to hallucination snowballing, a phenomenon where early errors propagate and compound into subsequent outputs. To address this challenge, we propose a novel inference-time hallucination mitigation framework, named Segment-wise HAllucination Rejection Sampling (SHARS), which uses an arbitrary hallucination detector to identify and reject hallucinated segments during generation and resample until faithful content is produced. By retaining only confident information and building subsequent generations upon it, the framework mitigates hallucination accumulation and enhances factual consistency. To instantiate this framework, we adopt semantic uncertainty as the detector and introduce several vital modifications to address its limitations and better adapt it to long-form text. Our method enables models to self-correct hallucinations without requiring external resources such as web search or knowledge bases, while remaining compatible with them for future extensions. Empirical evaluations on standardized hallucination benchmarks demonstrate that our method substantially reduces hallucinations in long-form generation while preserving or even improving the informativeness of generation. Code is available at: https://github.com/TreeLLi/hallucination-rejection-sampling.
Lin Li, Georgia Channing, Suhaas M Bhat +2
Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK · Department of Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK · Oxford Digital Health Labs, Nuffield Department of Women’s and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly utilize massive context windows as working memory for autonomous tasks, their reliability fluctuates significantly depending on how information is distributed in real-world corpora. We investigate how fact placement, corpus-level distributions, and anti-hallucination ("Don't Make It Up") prompts influence model behavior by introducing a model-agnostic extended needle-in-a-haystack benchmark designed for scalability, which we apply to evaluate Gemini-2.5-flash, ChatGPT-5-mini, Claude-4.5-haiku, and Deepseek-v3.2-chat. Unlike prior work, we separately evaluate literal extraction, logical inference, and hallucination risk. We identify two critical failure modes: Distributional Collapse, where performance degrades significantly when evidence is dispersed; and a Safety Tax, where anti-hallucination prompts cause over-conservative refusal of present facts and evidence, sharply reducing accuracy. Our results suggest that many failures stem from ineffective context utilization, as models struggle to prioritize relevant information even when it is present. These findings highlight the need for model-specific robustness and effective context management to ensure reliable deployment in long-horizon agentic workflows.
Amirali Ebrahimzadeh, Seyyed M. Salili
Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA · Independent Researcher, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA
Large language models (LLMs) often hallucinate in long-form generation. Existing approaches mainly improve factuality through post-hoc revision or reinforcement learning (RL) with correctness-based rewards, but they do not teach the model to estimate which parts of its generation are reliable. As a result, models may still state incorrect claims confidently in their responses. Recent advances in reasoning have significantly improved LLM performance, and have been leveraged to estimate confidence by incorporating calibration into RL objectives. However, existing approaches remain limited to a single scalar confidence for the entire response, which is insufficient for long-form generation where uncertainty varies across individual claims. To mitigate this problem, we propose CURE, a framework that improves long-form factuality by teaching LLMs to reason about uncertainty at the claim level. We first introduce a Claim-Aware Reasoning Protocol, which structures outputs into atomic claims paired with explicit confidence estimates. We then develop a multi-stage training pipeline that aligns model confidence with claims' correctness and then optimizes on factuality. The resulting calibrated confidence further enables selective prediction, allowing the model to abstain from uncertain claims at inference time. Experiments on four long-form factuality benchmarks show that CURE consistently improves factual accuracy over competitive supervised and RL baselines, while maintaining factual recall. In particular, it improves claim-level accuracy by up to 39.9% on Biography generation. These gains are accompanied by improved calibration, as reflected by a 16.0% increase in AUROC on FactBench.
Xin Liu, Lu Wang
Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA