Towards Mitigating Hallucination in Large Language Models via Self-Reflection
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for generative and knowledge-intensive tasks including question-answering (QA) tasks. However, the practical deployment still faces challenges, notably the issue of "hallucination", where models generate plausible-sounding but unfaithful or nonsensical information. This issue becomes particularly critical in the medical domain due to the uncommon professional concepts and potential social risks involved. This paper analyses the phenomenon of hallucination in medical generative QA systems using widely adopted LLMs and datasets. Our investigation centers on the identification and comprehension of common problematic answers, with a specific emphasis on hallucination. To tackle this challenge, we present an interactive self-reflection methodology that incorporates knowledge acquisition and answer generation. Through this feedback process, our approach steadily enhances the factuality, consistency, and entailment of the generated answers. Consequently, we harness the interactivity and multitasking ability of LLMs and produce progressively more precise and accurate answers. Experimental results on both automatic and human evaluation demonstrate the superiority of our approach in hallucination reduction compared to baselines.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The inclusion of memory and reflection in LLM-based algorithms offers significant benefits such as mitigating the risk of hallucinations and obtaining high-level understanding of the environment.
“The inclusion of memory and reflection in LLM-based algorithms offers significant benefits such as mitigating the risk of hallucinations[15] and obtaining high-level understanding of the environment[39].”
From Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Survey (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3703155 · Cited by 2,142 · see citing works
ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Susnjak, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09292 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
“The iterative self-reflective procedure outlined in this study works, and it has strong theoretical underpinnings [22,51,53,59] that can explain why it works.”
InfluentialHuang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.05232 · Cited by 2,516 · see citing works
“Similarly, Ji et al. (2023b) focus on the medical domain and introduces an iterative self-reflection process.”
The Dawn After the Dark: An Empirical Study on Factuality Hallucination in Large Language Models
Li, J., Chen, J., Ren, R., Cheng, X., Zhao, X., Nie, J.-Y., & Wen, J.-R. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.586 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Survey
Ding, H., Li, Y., Wang, J., Chen, H., Guo, D., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 9th International Conference on Computers in Management and Business · doi:10.1145/3802463.3802475 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
TradingAgents: Multi-Agents LLM Financial Trading Framework
Xiao, Y., Sun, E., Luo, D., & Wang, W. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.20138 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“…such as FinMem (Yu et al., 2023) and FinAgent (Zhang et al., 2024b), use layered memorization and multimodal data to summarize inputs into memories, inform decisions, and incorporate technical indicators, achieving superior backtest performance while mitigating hallucinations (Ji et al., 2023).”
uMedSum: A Unified Framework for Clinical Abstractive Summarization
Nagar, A., Liu, Y., Liu, A. T., Schlegel, V., Dwivedi, V. P., Kaliya-Perumal, A.-K., Kalanchiam, G. P., Tang, Y., & Tan, R. T. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.134 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Hallucination Detection-Guided Preference Optimization for Clinical Summarization
Seethakantha, S. K., Thai, D. N., Gudi, V. P., Tiwari, S., Matar, R., Mitra, A., Zhao, W., McCallum, A., & Salloum, W. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.28910
“Recent work combining iterative refinement with alignment shows such approaches can strip salient content or introduce new hallucinations even when fluency is preserved (Ji et al., 2023b).”
From Illusion to Insight: A Taxonomic Survey of Hallucination Mitigation Techniques in LLMs
Kazlaris, I., Antoniou, E., Diamantaras, K., & Bratsas, C. (2025) · doi:10.20944/preprints202508.1942.v1 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ji, Z., Yu, T., Xu, Y., Lee, N., Ishii, E., & Fung, P.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2310.06271
- OpenAlex
- W4387560883
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- hallucination mitigation, large language models, self-reflection, medical question answering, factuality, answer consistency, logical consequence, interactive feedback, medical knowledge acquisition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
