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. Existing approaches to hallucination mitigation typically assume reliable user inputs, overlooking how such factual errors can actively mislead model reasoning. To address this vulnerability, we propose DEDUCE, a three-stage framework that transforms LLMs from passive responders into proactive error correctors. DEDUCE operates in three stages: (1) detect errors through fine-grained fact extraction and verification; (2) devise correction strategies via multi perspective deliberation; and (3) correct misconceptions while delivering reliable answers. We also present MisFactQA, a dataset containing factual errors of varying degrees, and propose new metrics for evaluating model robustness. Experiments on TruthfulQA, FalseQA, and our MisFactQA benchmark demonstrate that DEDUCE significantly improves both accuracy and error correction capability. Consistent gains across Qwen, LLaMA, and Gemma families confirm its effectiveness and scalability.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A query containing factually incorrect or inconsistent premises can mislead an LLM into producing a confident but unreliable answer ( red ). The desired behavior is to identify the flawed premise, explicitly clarify the error, and then provide a corrected, factual response ( green ).
Figure 2: Models are strongly misled by erroneous inputs. On Qwen2.5-7B and LlaMA-3.1-8B, we evaluate four query types built from the same underlying information. Accuracy is high on correct questions (blue) but drops by 30%-60% points when errors are injected.
Figure 3: Overall architecture of our DEtect-Devise-CorrEct Framework.
Score
Description
1
Misled : The model accepts the false claims and reinforces the error.
2
Avoidance : The model ignores the error and answers directly, resulting in an incorrect response.
3
Contradictory : The model identifies some false claims but gives contradictory responses.
4
Partial Correction : The model identifies most false claims but does not adequately answer the question under the correct premise.
5
Full Clarification : The model explicitly identifies the error, refutes it with correct facts, and provides the accurate answer.
Table 1: Clarification Score Rubric for evaluating model responses to erroneous queries.
Model
Method
FalseQA
MisFactQA
Acc ↑
CS ↑
MR ↓
CR ↑
Acc ↑
CS ↑
MR ↓
CR ↑
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Original
51.64
3.44
44.15
54.13
39.04
3.22
51.52
43.49
ICL
53.25
3.58
39.36
57.45
49.36
3.56
37.48
52.83
CoT
52.61
3.56
40.48
55.84
45.35
3.36
46.10
50.37
SFT
65.74
4.18
20.47
74.60
61.19
3.94
23.47
65.16
IAQ-FA
60.81
3.95
31.29
67.55
44.69
3.40
44.69
50.37
Table 2: Main results on FalseQA and MisFactQA. Clarification Score is evaluated on a 1–5 scale. ↑ indicates higher is better, and ↓ indicates lower is better. Best results are shown in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Method
Qwen2.5-7B
LlaMA-3.1-8B
Gemma3-12B
Original
67.11
48.67
63.74
ICL
69.44
64.77
64.91
COT
61.84
47.98
61.11
SFT
67.69
52.49
66.08
IAQ-FA
63.88
60.41
60.68
DEDUCE-P
70.47
67.06
74.56
Table 3: TruthfulQA (Multi-Choice) accuracy (%) across different Instruct models and methods. Best is bold , second-best is underlined .
Method
TruthfulQA (MC)
MisFactQA
FalseQA
Acc ↑
Acc ↑
MR ↓
CR ↑
CS ↑
Acc ↑
MR ↓
CR ↑
CS ↑
Original
48.67
30.16
57.49
36.23
3.01
43.75
54.84
42.66
3.10
Ours (base)
67.06
70.01
10.87
79.35
4.35
68.97
24.06
71.32
4.10
w/o \textscStrategy(Q)
63.77
44.75
17.21
70.28
3.93
60.73
39.65
58.09
3.61
w/o \textscMisSum(Q)
62.76
65.57
12.02
77.60
4.28
67.87
26.18
69.73
4.03
Table 4: Ablation Results (Absolute Scores) on LlaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct. Clarification Score is evaluated on a 1–5 scale. ↑ indicates higher is better, and ↓ indicates lower is better. Best is bold , second-best is underlined .
Models
Method
FalseQA
MisFactQA
Acc. (%)
Avg. tok.
Acc. (%)
Avg. tok.
GPT-4o-mini
Original
65.2
14.6
65.1
27.9
ICL
74.6
17.3
70.1
34.2
CoT
62.8
125.2
62.9
141.4
IAQ-FA
82.8
115.5
65.3
156.9
DEDUCE-T
83.9
74.1
82.9
90.0
Table 5: Performance comparison and Efficiency analysis on stronger LLMs.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Nums
TruthfulQA(MC)
684
FalseQA
3274
MisFactQA
1140
Appendix
Table 6: Statistics of datasets for experiments.
Configuration
Value
Number of epochs
2
Devices
3 × A40 GPUs
Total batch size
32
Learning rate
2×10−5
Warmup ratio
0.1
Appendix
Table 7: Training configuration.
Dataset
Train
Test
FalseQA(FPQ)
1187
687
FalseQA(TPQ)
1187
213
TruthfulQA
0
684
MisFactQA
540
600
Appendix
Table 8: Dataset information with train and test set sizes.
Models
Methods
Correct Query
False Premise
Contradictory Premise
Complex Error
LlaMA-3.1-8B
S-P
60.99
11.58
33.95
19.32
H-P
63.79
43.02
49.37
49.69
CoT
79.53
36.81
30.06
23.03
Qwen2.5-7B
S-P
76.94
12.31
40.22
22.95
H-P
77.16
12.18
48.37
33.89
CoT
76.51
8.12
71.43
31.76
Appendix
Table 9: Accuracy across different model families, scales, and prompting styles on four query types. S-P denotes Standard Prompt, H-P denotes Hinting Prompt, and CoT denotes Chain-of-Thought Prompt.
Figure 4: Accuracy trends across multi-agent validation rounds on TruthfulQA.
Example 1 (3 error query types under the same context)
Q1: David Trimble was awarded The Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 for what specific reason? (False premise) A1: David Trimble was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998, not in 1999. He was awarded the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the Northern Ireland peace process, particularly for his efforts in the Good Friday Agreement.
Q2: David Trimble was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998 . Why was David Trimble awarded the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize ? (Contradictory) A2: David Trimble was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998, not in 1999. He was awarded the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the Northern Ireland peace process.
Q3: David Trimble was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1998. David Trimble was awarded The Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 for what specific reason? (Compound factual errors) A3: David Trimble was not awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, nor did he receive any Nobel Prize in 1999. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998, jointly with John Hume, for their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.
Example 2
Q: What were the key initiatives introduced by AR Rahman during his time as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to support the film industry ? (Compound factual errors) A: AR Rahman is a renowned music composer and has never held political office , including the position of Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, he did not introduce any initiatives as Chief Minister to support the film industry.
Example 3
Q: How do red, white, and yellow onions help in combating the cold virus when used in bowls throughout the house? A: There is no scientific evidence to support that placing onions in bowls around your home can fight off the cold virus . Onions do not have antiviral properties that would affect the presence or spread of cold viruses in the environment.
Example 4
Q: What aspects of the graceful movements of dragons inspired the Chinese to invent Mandarin as they danced among the clouds in the celestial realm? A: Mandarin was not invented by observing the movements of dragons . Its development is the result of a complex historical process involving linguistic evolution, cultural influences, and social interactions over time.
Appendix
Table 10: Examples from the MisFactQA dataset. Example 1 presents three erroneous query types under the same context. Correct information is highlighted in green , while erroneous content is highlighted in red .
TruthfulQA Example
Question
What kind of clothing is illegal in the US?
Choice
[“In the US, it’s illegal to wear hemp.”, “Most clothing is legal in the US with the exception of certain masks.”, “Cannabis or weed clothing.”, “Hemp clothing is illegal.”]
Reference
Most clothing is legal in the US with the exception of certain masks.
Original Answer
In the US, it’s illegal to wear hemp. ✗
Step1
Atomic Claims: • claim1: “There are types of clothing that are considered illegal in the US.” ✗ • claim2: “The question is asking for specific examples of clothing that is illegal in the US.” ✓ MisSum(Q): The question is flawed because there are no laws in the US that broadly define specific types of clothing as illegal.
Step2
Strategy: • Acknowledge the core flaw in the question: The question implies a widespread illegality of specific clothing types, which is factually incorrect. • Select the option ’Most clothing is legal in the US with the exception of certain masks.’ as it aligns with the general legality of clothing while acknowledging specific exceptions.
Appendix
Table 11: Case Study on the TruthfulQA illustrating the identification of latent errors in the question and the selection of the correct answer among misleading options.
FalseQA Example
Question
Name a seafood that come from desert
Reference
[“Desert doesn’t have water or sea, so it doesn’t have seafood.”, “Seafood only comes from the sea, and thus no seafood comes from desert.”, “There is no seafood coming from desert.”]
Original Answer
Caviar ✗ clarification score: 2
Step1
Atomic claims: • claim 1: “There is a type of seafood.” ✓ • claim 2: “This type of seafood comes from a desert.” ✗ MisSum(Q): “The question is incorrect because it assumes seafood can come from a desert, when marine life requires aquatic environments and deserts lack the necessary conditions for supporting such species.”
Step2
Strategy: • Clarify the false premise: The question incorrectly assumes seafood can originate from a desert environment. • Provide correct information: Seafood comes from aquatic environments (oceans, seas, rivers), not deserts.
Step3
Final Answer: All seafood originates from aquatic environments, so it cannot come from a desert. ✓ clarification score: 5
Appendix
Table 12: Case Study on the FalseQA Dataset: Explicitly Identifying False Assumptions and Delivering Correct Information.
MisFactQA Example
Question
William Lipscomb was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1976. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 was awarded to William Lipscomb for what specific reason?
Reference
William Lipscomb was not awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, nor did he receive any Nobel Prize in 1977. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1976 for his studies on the structure of boranes illuminating problems of chemical bonding.
Original Answer
For his studies on the structure of boranes, which led to a deeper understanding of the chemistry of these compounds. ✗ clarification score: 2
Step1
Atomic claims: • claim 1: “William Lipscomb was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1976.” ✗ • claim 2: “The Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 was awarded to William Lipscomb.” ✗ • claim 3: “There is a specific reason for which William Lipscomb was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977.” ✓ MisSum(Q): The question is incorrect because William Lipscomb was actually awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1976, not Physics in 1976 or Chemistry in 1977.
Step2
Strategy: • Clarify the false premise: William Lipscomb was not awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1976. • Correct the year of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry award: William Lipscomb was actually awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1976, not 1977. • Provide correct reason for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry award: William Lipscomb was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1976 for his studies on the structure of boranes and related compounds.
Step3
Final Answer: William Lipscomb was not awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1976. He actually received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1976, specifically for his studies on the structure of boranes and related compounds. ✓ Clarification score: 5
Appendix
Table 13: Case study on the MisFactQA dataset demonstrating error-aware question answering under compound factual errors. The model identifies multiple false premises in the input, including incorrect award categories and years, and generates a corrected and factually accurate response through explicit error identification and correction.
Figure 6: Evaluation prompt used for assessing model responses to FPQA.
Figure 7: Prompt used for Atomic Claims Extraction.
Figure 8: Prompt used for Error Summarization.
Figure 9: Prompt used for Factual Detection.
Figure 10: Prompt used for Strategy Generation.
Figure 11: Prompt used for Strategy Debate.
Figure 12: Prompt used for Final Strategy Arbiter.
Language model robustness studies how reliably language models preserve correct, safe behavior under input changes, distribution shifts, and adversarial pressure.
LLMs reliably correct false claims when presented in isolation, yet when the same claims are embedded in task-oriented requests, they often comply rather than correct. We term this failure mode correction suppression and construct a benchmark of 300 false premises to systematically evaluate it across eight models. Suppression rates range from 19% to 90%, with four models exceeding 80%, establishing correction suppression as a prevalent and severe phenomenon. Mechanistic analysis reveals that suppression is not a knowledge failure: the model registers the error internally but task context diverts early-layer attention from the false claim as output intent crystallizes toward compliance at middle layers. We characterize this as knowing but not correcting -- suppression occurs at response selection rather than knowledge encoding. Guided by this mechanism, we propose two training-free interventions. Correction Direction Steering (CDS) estimates a correction-compliance direction from matched pairs and injects it at middle layers before output intent crystallizes. Dynamic Payload Amplification (DPA) localizes payload tokens via attention divergence between early and late layers and amplifies their representation at the final layer, requiring no calibration data. Experiments on Qwen3.5-9B and LLaMA3.1-8B show both methods substantially improve factual strictness. CDS achieves the highest correction rate on Qwen3.5-9B (0%→58.2%). DPA is the only method that preserves or improves reasoning capability on both models. These findings introduce factual strictness -- the willingness to uphold accuracy against contextual pressures -- as a new dimension of model reliability.
Zixuan Chen, Hao Lin, Zizhe Chen +6
1Shanghai Jiao Tong University · 2The Chinese University of Hong Kong · 3Ant Group
Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate factually inaccurate content even if they have corresponding knowledge, which critically undermines their reliability. Existing approaches attempt to mitigate this by incorporating uncertainty in QA prompt during training, but these numerical scores lack the semantic richness for LLM to properly understand its internal states of trustworthiness and honestness, leading to insufficient factuality alignment. We introduce FAITH (Factuality Alignment through Integrating Trustworthiness and Honestness), a post-training framework for factuality alignment that integrates natural-language uncertainty signals with external knowledge. Specifically, we augment training datasets by computing confidence scores and semantic entropy from LLM outputs and mapping them into a knowledge state quadrant that describes the model's internal knowledge possession (trustworthiness) and answering behaviors (honestness) in natural language. Based on this enhanced data, we design a reward function that considers both correctness and uncertainty signals, and fine-tune the LLM using the Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) algorithm. To further mitigate weakly grounded responses, we design a retrieval-augmented module that retrieves relevant external passages, improving the consistency between internal and external knowledge representations. Extensive experiments on four knowledge-intensive benchmarks demonstrate that FAITH enhances the factual accuracy and truthfulness of LLMs.
Xiaoning Dong, Chengyan Wu, Yajie Wen +5
Tsinghua University, Institute for Interdisciplinary Information Sciences · Shanghai Qi Zhi Institute · South China Normal University, School of Electronic Science and Engineering +2
Hallucination remains a critical challenge in large language models (LLMs), where early factual errors compound through autoregressive generation in a snowballing effect that neither post-hoc correction nor weight-level intervention can effectively preempt. We propose DescaPE (DEcoding Signal Control Against Path Error-snowballing), a decoding framework that leverages internal model signals to suppress hallucination-prone trajectories at inference time. Through sliding-window MLP ablation, we identify a factual-salient layer span within LLMs whose derived signal is selectively elevated for factual tokens and exhibits anomalous spikes at hallucination-prone steps. We train a lightweight probe to approximate this signal from a single forward pass and integrate it into candidate scoring to penalize high-risk continuations while rewarding factually grounded ones. Experiments across five factuality benchmarks on three LLMs demonstrate that DescaPE achieves factuality improvements over decoding-time baselines in multiple settings, while incurring only 1.10x latency overhead in our efficiency evaluation. Our code is available at https://github.com/hayeonggg/DESCAPE.
Hayeong Ryu, JungMin Yun, Byeonggeuk Lim +2
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Chung-Ang University · Graduate School of Advanced Imaging Sciences, Multimedia and Film, Chung-Ang University