mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Toward Epistemic Stability: Engineering Consistent Procedures for Industrial LLM Hallucination Reduction

arXiv 2603.10047 ↗First posted 8 Mar 2026cs.SE cs.AI cs.HCcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) are outputs that are syntactically coherent but factually incorrect or contextually inconsistent. They are persistent obstacles in high-stakes industrial settings such as engineering design, enterprise resource planning, and IoT telemetry platforms. We present and compare five prompt engineering strategies intended to reduce the variance of model outputs and move toward repeatable, grounded results without modifying model weights or creating complex validation models. These methods include: (M1) Iterative Similarity Convergence, (M2) Decomposed Model-Agnostic Prompting, (M3) Single-Task Agent Specialization, (M4) Enhanced Data Registry, and (M5) Domain Glossary Injection. Each method is evaluated against an internal baseline using an LLM-as-Judge framework over 100 repeated runs per method (same fixed task prompt, stochastic decoding at tau = 0.7. Under this evaluation setup, M4 (Enhanced Data Registry) received ``Better'' verdicts in all 100 trials; M3 and M5 reached 80% and 77% respectively; M1 reached 75%; and M2 was net negative at 34% when compared to single shot prompting with a modern foundation model. We then developed enhanced version 2 (v2) implementations and assessed them on a 10-trial verification batch; M2 recovered from 34% to 80%, the largest gain among the four revised methods. We discuss how these strategies help overcome the non-deterministic nature of LLM results for industrial procedures, even when absolute correctness cannot be guaranteed. We provide pseudocode, verbatim prompts, and batch logs to support independent assessment.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Mar 2026.

Builds on

25 of 48 references.

References · 25

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  3. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
  4. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
  5. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
  6. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  7. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  8. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
  9. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
  10. 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
  11. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
  12. 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,582
13 more
  1. 2022Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 1,397
  2. 2023Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Contextcited by 820
  3. 2024Self-Rewarding Language Modelscited by 654
  4. 2023A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPTcited by 612
  5. 2025Why Language Models Hallucinatecited by 205
  6. 2025CRMArena-Pro: Holistic Assessment of LLM Agents Across Diverse Business Scenarios and Interactionscited by 46
  7. 2025Large Language Models Hallucination: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 45
  8. 2025Exploring the Impact of Temperature on Large Language Models:Hot or Cold?cited by 40
  9. 2024Position: Understanding LLMs Requires More Than Statistical Generalizationcited by 20
  10. 2024A Law of Next-Token Prediction in Large Language Modelscited by 15
  11. 2025Exploring the Impact of Temperature Scaling in Softmax for Classification and Adversarial Robustnesscited by 9
  12. 2024Agents Are Not Enoughcited by 5
  13. 2025Task-based Loss Functions in Computer Vision: A Comprehensive Reviewcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.