Probabilistic Guarantees for Reducing Contextual Hallucinations in LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) frequently produce contextual hallucinations, where generated content contradicts or ignores information explicitly stated in the prompt. Such errors are particularly problematic in deterministic automation workflows, where inputs are fixed and correctness is unambiguous. We introduce a simple and model-agnostic framework that provides explicit probabilistic guarantees for reducing hallucinations in this setting. We formalize the notion of a specific task, defined by a fixed input and a deterministic correctness criterion, and show that issuing the same prompt in independent context windows yields an exponential reduction in the probability that all model outputs are incorrect. To identify a correct answer among repeated runs, we incorporate an LLM-as-a-judge and prove that the probability that the judged pipeline fails decays at a rate determined by the judge's true- and false-positive probabilities. When the judge is imperfect, we strengthen it through majority vote over independent judge calls, obtaining ensemble-level error rates that decrease exponentially in the number of votes. This yields an explicit bound on the probability that the pipeline selects a hallucinated answer. Experiments on controlled extraction tasks with synthetic noisy judges match these predictions exactly: pipeline failure decreases exponentially with the number of repetitions, and hallucination-selection decreases exponentially with the number of judges in the ensemble. Together, these results provide a lightweight, modular, and theoretically grounded method for driving hallucination probabilities arbitrarily low in fixed-input LLM workflows-without modifying model weights, decoding strategies, or prompt engineering.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jan 2026.
Builds on
25 of 26 references.
References · 25
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
- 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,739
- 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,582
- 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 895
- 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
- 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 578
- 2021Entity-Based Knowledge Conflicts in Question Answeringcited by 349
- 2023Trusting Your Evidence: Hallucinate Less with Context-aware Decodingcited by 319
- 2023AlignScore: Evaluating Factual Consistency with a Unified Alignment Functioncited by 284
- 2023Unleashing the Emergent Cognitive Synergy in Large Language Models: A Task-Solving Agent through Multi-Persona Self-Collaborationcited by 246
13 more
- 2025Why Language Models Hallucinatecited by 205
- 2023LM vs LM: Detecting Factual Errors via Cross Examinationcited by 155
- 2023Evaluating Correctness and Faithfulness of Instruction-Following Models for Question Answeringcited by 150
- 2023BooookScore: A systematic exploration of book-length summarization in the era of LLMscited by 137
- 2023ChatGPT as a Factual Inconsistency Evaluator for Text Summarizationcited by 75
- 2024FABLES: Evaluating faithfulness and content selection in book-length summarizationcited by 65
- 2023Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Text Summarization with In-Context Learningcited by 44
- 2023LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyondcited by 37
- 2023Faithfulness-Aware Decoding Strategies for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 31
- 2024RefChecker: Reference-based Fine-grained Hallucination Checker and Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 24
- 2023KL-Divergence Guided Temperature Samplingcited by 9
- 2025VeriFastScore: Speeding up long-form factuality evaluationcited by 8
- 2025Towards Long Context Hallucination Detectioncited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.