From Passive Response to Proactive Correction: Enhancing LLM Robustness Against Input Fact Perturbations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) frequently produce confident yet factually incorrect responses when user inputs contain misleading premises, a phenomenon we attribute to fact perturbations in the input. Existing approaches to hallucination mitigation typically assume reliable user inputs, overlooking how such factual errors can actively mislead model reasoning. To address this vulnerability, we propose DEDUCE, a three-stage framework that transforms LLMs from passive responders into proactive error correctors. DEDUCE operates in three stages: (1) detect errors through fine-grained fact extraction and verification; (2) devise correction strategies via multi perspective deliberation; and (3) correct misconceptions while delivering reliable answers. We also present MisFactQA, a dataset containing factual errors of varying degrees, and propose new metrics for evaluating model robustness. Experiments on TruthfulQA, FalseQA, and our MisFactQA benchmark demonstrate that DEDUCE significantly improves both accuracy and error correction capability. Consistent gains across Qwen, LLaMA, and Gemma families confirm its effectiveness and scalability.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.
Builds on
21 of 41 references.
References · 21
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2022Atlas: Few-shot Learning with Retrieval Augmented Language Modelscited by 940
- 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 751
- 2023Textbooks Are All You Need II: phi-1.5 technical reportcited by 559
- 2024JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judgescited by 294
- 2024Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Surveycited by 274
- 2022Factuality Enhanced Language Models for Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 200
- 2023OpenAGI: When LLM Meets Domain Expertscited by 196
- 2024Sycophancy in Large Language Models: Causes and Mitigationscited by 97
- 2024Cutting Off the Head Ends the Conflict: A Mechanism for Interpreting and Mitigating Knowledge Conflicts in Language Modelscited by 87
9 more
- 2023Towards Mitigating Hallucination in Large Language Models via Self-Reflectioncited by 81
- 2024Self-Alignment for Factuality: Mitigating Hallucinations in LLMs via Self-Evaluationcited by 79
- 2024ConflictBank: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Influence of Knowledge Conflicts in LLMcited by 73
- 2023Won't Get Fooled Again: Answering Questions with False Premisescited by 47
- 2024Blinded by Generated Contexts: How Language Models Merge Generated and Retrieved Contexts When Knowledge Conflicts?cited by 47
- 2025FaithfulRAG: Fact-Level Conflict Modeling for Context-Faithful Retrieval-Augmented Generationcited by 27
- 2025How to Protect Yourself from 5G Radiation? Investigating LLM Responses to Implicit Misinformationcited by 17
- 2024Retrieve-Plan-Generation: An Iterative Planning and Answering Framework for Knowledge-Intensive LLM Generationcited by 15
- 2025From Misleading Queries to Accurate Answers: A Three-Stage Fine-Tuning Method for LLMscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.