Large language models deployed in high-stakes settings frequently generate plausible but ungrounded claims. Standard retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines offer limited remedy, since they retrieve isolated passages without tracking cross-document evidence relationships or quantifying uncertainty. We introduce GRACE (Graph-grounded Reflective Agent Copilot Engine), a framework that deconstructs LLM responses into atomic claims and grounds them against trusted knowledge priors within a weighted bipartite graph. Edge weights encode the closeness of each claim to the priors, enabling weighted centrality analysis that classifies claims as Grounded, Refuted, or Boundary. Such classification identifies not just hallucinations but also novel or contested claims at the frontier of the model's knowledge. To efficiently allocate human or agent resources, we formulate a Return on Attention (RoA) objective that defers a claim to expert review only when its priority-weighted uncertainty exceeds the cost of verification. Claims verified by experts are promoted to new evidence anchors, closing a validator-LLM evolutionary loop that expands the knowledge base across iterations. We evaluate GRACE across multiple language models and on datasets spanning both general and domain-specific knowledge. Our results show that our knowledge base serves as a reliable foundation for retrieval that outperforms RAG baselines, and that the RoA framework efficiently selects valuable boundary knowledge for expert verification. These findings demonstrate that graph-structured representations combined with expert-in-the-loop verification can mitigate hallucination at the system level rather than at the generation level. Code available at https://github.com/johnsk95/grace_code
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the GRACE framework. Given user queries and source documents, priors P and LLM responses R are decomposed into atomic claims and organized into a weighted bipartite graph. Closeness centrality CC(v) classifies each claim as Grounded, Boundary, or Refuted. The Return on Attention (RoA) framework routes only boundary claims whose expected utility exceeds verification cost to experts (human or LLM agent). Confirmed claims are promoted to new priors, closing one knowledge expansion loop.
QASPER [ Dasigi et al. (2021) ]
QuALITY [ Pang et al. (2022) ]
Accuracy (%)
Answerable (%)
Accuracy (%)
GPT-4o-mini [ OpenAI (2024) ]
Zero-shot + Part
10.8
26.6
56.2
Zero-shot + Full
29.0
53.6
79.6
RAG
19.8
45.2
66.5
GraphRAG
27.8
90.4
85.3
Table 1: GRACE serves as a reliable retrieval tool over other retrieval and zero-shot methods. Numbers indicate average accuracy (%) and percentage of questions answerable (%) across two QA benchmarks. GRACE displays competitive QA performance, while not being overly confident in question answerability. Underlined numbers indicate the full context ceiling.
Context
Accuracy (%)
Δ
Abstract only
0.1413
—
Round 0 (Abstract + Intro)
0.2225
+8.1
Round 1 (Batch 1)
0.2447
+10.3
Round 2 (Batch 2)
0.3716
+23.0
Round 3 (Batch 3)
0.4913
+35.0
Full paper
0.3360
+19.5
Table 2: Downstream QA accuracy improves monotonically with each expansion round. Δ is relative to the abstract-only baseline.
Figure 2: GRACE claim classification align with ground truth. Confusion matrix of system-assigned labels versus oracle labels.
Round
Context
PCR ↑
KF ↓
Yield
Cascade
0
Abstract + Intro
63.1%
10.02
—
—
1
+ Batch 1
77.3%
6.25
56.3%
3.77
2
+ Batch 2
80.6%
5.30
58.4%
0.95
3
+ Batch 3
83.4%
4.57
69.5%
0.73
Table 3: Knowledge coverage grows and the boundary shrinks with each expansion round. PCR rises while verification yield increases across rounds.
Round
Accuracy
PCR ↑
KF ↓
Yield
Abstention
Round 0
16.67%
89.55%
5.33
—
—
Round 1 (LLM validator)
18.75%
93.58%
2.93
34.48%
44.83%
Round 1 (Human)
18.75%
93.63%
2.07
37.93%
3.45%
Table 4: Human validators match the LLM judge on knowledge coverage but shrink the knowledge frontier substantially further. One expansion round on a 15-paper QASPER subset, verified by 15 human experts compared with LLM validators.
Figure 3: GRACE displays reliable retrieval performance on large knowledge bases with multiple long documents. QA accuracy drops initially at 1→5 documents, but plateaus when more documents are added.