Building Reliable Long-Form Generation via Hallucination Rejection Sampling
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in open-ended text generation, yet they remain prone to hallucinating incorrect or unsupported content, which undermines their reliability. This issue is exacerbated in long-form generation due to hallucination snowballing, a phenomenon where early errors propagate and compound into subsequent outputs. To address this challenge, we propose a novel inference-time hallucination mitigation framework, named Segment-wise HAllucination Rejection Sampling (SHARS), which uses an arbitrary hallucination detector to identify and reject hallucinated segments during generation and resample until faithful content is produced. By retaining only confident information and building subsequent generations upon it, the framework mitigates hallucination accumulation and enhances factual consistency. To instantiate this framework, we adopt semantic uncertainty as the detector and introduce several vital modifications to address its limitations and better adapt it to long-form text. Our method enables models to self-correct hallucinations without requiring external resources such as web search or knowledge bases, while remaining compatible with them for future extensions. Empirical evaluations on standardized hallucination benchmarks demonstrate that our method substantially reduces hallucinations in long-form generation while preserving or even improving the informativeness of generation. Code is available at: https://github.com/TreeLLi/hallucination-rejection-sampling.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Grattafiori, A., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Vaughan, A., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21783 · Cited by 505 · cited 1× · see citing works
“1-8B-Instruct (Grattafiori et al., 2024).”
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Li, L., Channing, G., Bhat, S. M., Jones, G. D., & Gal, Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2606.03628
- OpenAlex
- W7163395111
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme (101213369)
- Medical Research Council (MR/X029689/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- hallucination mitigation, long-form text generation, semantic uncertainty, hallucination detection, self-correction, large language models, factual consistency
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