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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10047 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.10047/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 25 of its 48 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05232/) (2023)
- [Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.10625/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00093/) (2023)
- [Self-Rewarding Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10020/) (2024)
- [A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.11382/) (2023)
- [Why Language Models Hallucinate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.04664/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Hallucination: A Comprehensive Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.06265/) (2025)
- [CRMArena-Pro: Holistic Assessment of LLM Agents Across Diverse Business Scenarios and Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18878/) (2025)
- [Exploring the Impact of Temperature on Large Language Models:Hot or Cold?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07295/) (2025)
- [Position: Understanding LLMs Requires More Than Statistical Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01964/) (2024)
- [A Law of Next-Token Prediction in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.13442/) (2024)
- [Exploring the Impact of Temperature Scaling in Softmax for Classification and Adversarial Robustness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20604/) (2025)
- [Agents Are Not Enough](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16241/) (2024)
- [Task-based Loss Functions in Computer Vision: A Comprehensive Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.04242/) (2025)

## 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.