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.
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
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse natural language processing tasks, yet they remain susceptible to hallucinations -- generating content that is factually incorrect, unfaithful to provided context, or misaligned with user instructions. We present HalluScan, a comprehensive benchmark framework that systematically evaluates hallucination detection and mitigation across 72 configurations spanning 6 detection methods, 4 open-weight model families, and 3 diverse domains. We introduce three key contributions: (1) HalluScore, a novel composite metric that achieves a Pearson correlation of r = 0.41 with human expert judgments; (2) Adaptive Detection Routing (ADR), an intelligent routing algorithm achieving 2.0x cost reduction with only 0.1% AUROC degradation; and (3) systematic error cascade decomposition revealing substantial variation in hallucination error types across domains. Our experiments reveal that NLI Verification achieves the highest overall AUROC of 0.88, while RAV achieves the second-highest AUROC of 0.66.
Hallucinations remain a major obstacle to deploying large language models (LLMs) in knowledge-intensive settings, where generated responses must be faithfully grounded in provided evidence. Reinforcement learning (RL) is a promising direction for hallucination mitigation, but response-level faithfulness rewards suffer from a granularity mismatch: localized hallucinations can cause supported content to receive spurious penalties. Although recent work introduces fine-grained feedback such as claim-level verification and token-level rewards, unbalanced credit assignment can still induce length, verbosity, or optimization-noise biases. We propose BALTO, a Balanced Token-level Policy Optimization framework for hallucination mitigation. BALTO extracts checkable factual claims, verifies them against the reference context, and projects claim-level judgments to token-level labels. A balanced token-level credit assignment mechanism is introduced into the framework. This design redistributes probability mass from unsupported content toward faithful content, rather than suppressing the entire response. We systematically analyze the limitations of response-level rewards from a theoretical standpoint, and prove BALTO's advantages in training stability and optimization efficiency for hallucination mitigation. Experiments on ConFiQA, RAGTruth, and FinLLM-Eval show that BALTO achieves the highest faithfulness across all six model--benchmark settings and consistently outperforms existing post-training baselines in Q-Score, demonstrating a stronger faithfulness--informativeness trade-off.