# Investigating the Role of Prompting and External Tools in Hallucination Rates of Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19385 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.19385/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Medical and scientific domain agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 6 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Oct 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Medical and scientific domain agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/medical-and-scientific-domain-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Mitigating Large Language Model Hallucinations via Autonomous Knowledge Graph-based Retrofitting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.13314/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Combinatorial Optimization for All: Using LLMs to Aid Non-Experts in Improving Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10968/) (2025)
- [FasterPy: An LLM-based Code Execution Efficiency Optimization Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.22827/) (2025)
- [Mitigating LLM Hallucinations through Domain-Grounded Tiered Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.17872/) (2026)
- [Hallucinations in LLMs: A Lifecycle-Based Survey of Causes, Detection, Mitigation, and Prevention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.26168/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful computational models trained on extensive corpora of human-readable text, enabling them to perform general-purpose language understanding and generation. LLMs have garnered significant attention in both industry and academia due to their exceptional performance across various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. Despite these successes, LLMs often produce inaccuracies, commonly referred to as hallucinations. Prompt engineering, the process of designing and formulating instructions for LLMs to perform specific tasks, has emerged as a key approach to mitigating hallucinations. This paper provides a comprehensive empirical evaluation of different prompting strategies and frameworks aimed at reducing hallucinations in LLMs. Various prompting techniques are applied to a broad set of benchmark datasets to assess the accuracy and hallucination rate of each method. Additionally, the paper investigates the influence of tool-calling agents (LLMs augmented with external tools to enhance their capabilities beyond language generation) on hallucination rates in the same benchmarks. The findings demonstrate that the optimal prompting technique depends on the type of problem, and that simpler techniques often outperform more complex methods in reducing hallucinations. Furthermore, it is shown that LLM agents can exhibit significantly higher hallucination rates due to the added complexity of external tool usage.