Mitigating LLM Hallucination via Behaviorally Calibrated Reinforcement Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.19920v2
• Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 04:58:51 GMT
• Title: Mitigating LLM Hallucination via Behaviorally Calibrated Reinforcement Learning
• Authors: Jiayun Wu, Jiashuo Liu, Zhiyuan Zeng, Tianyang Zhan, Tianle Cai, Wenhao Huang,
• Abstract summary: Behavior-calibrated reinforcement learning allows smaller models to surpass frontier models in uncertainty quantification.<n>Our model's log-scale Accuracy-to-Hallucination Ratio gain (0.806) exceeds GPT-5's (0.207) in a challenging in-domain evaluation.
• Score: 32.32593439144886
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM deployment in critical domains is currently impeded by persistent hallucinations--generating plausible but factually incorrect assertions. While scaling laws drove significant improvements in general capabilities, theoretical frameworks suggest hallucination is not merely stochastic error but a predictable statistical consequence of training objectives prioritizing mimicking data distribution over epistemic honesty. Standard RLVR paradigms, utilizing binary reward signals, inadvertently incentivize models as good test-takers rather than honest communicators, encouraging guessing whenever correctness probability exceeds zero. This paper presents an exhaustive investigation into behavioral calibration, which incentivizes models to stochastically admit uncertainty by abstaining when not confident, aligning model behavior with accuracy. Synthesizing recent advances, we propose and evaluate training interventions optimizing strictly proper scoring rules for models to output a calibrated probability of correctness. Our methods enable models to either abstain from producing a complete response or flag individual claims where uncertainty remains. Utilizing Qwen3-4B-Instruct, empirical analysis reveals behavior-calibrated reinforcement learning allows smaller models to surpass frontier models in uncertainty quantification--a transferable meta-skill decouplable from raw predictive accuracy. Trained on math reasoning tasks, our model's log-scale Accuracy-to-Hallucination Ratio gain (0.806) exceeds GPT-5's (0.207) in a challenging in-domain evaluation (BeyondAIME). Moreover, in cross-domain factual QA (SimpleQA), our 4B LLM achieves zero-shot calibration error on par with frontier models including Grok-4 and Gemini-2.5-Pro, even though its factual accuracy is much lower.

Related papers

• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• Outcome Accuracy is Not Enough: Aligning the Reasoning Process of Reward Models [108.26461635308796]
  We introduce Rationale Consistency, a fine-grained metric that quantifies the alignment between the model's reasoning process and human judgment.<n>Our evaluation of frontier models reveals that rationale consistency effectively discriminates among state-of-the-art models.<n>We introduce a hybrid signal that combines rationale consistency with outcome accuracy for GenRM training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T15:24:52Z)
• InT: Self-Proposed Interventions Enable Credit Assignment in LLM Reasoning [32.274434679047395]
  Outcome-reward reinforcement learning (RL) has proven effective at improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Standard RL assigns credit only at the level of the final answer, penalizing entire reasoning traces when the outcome is incorrect.<n>We introduce Intervention Training (InT), a training paradigm in which the model performs fine-grained credit assignment on its own reasoning traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T18:15:38Z)
• EpiCaR: Knowing What You Don't Know Matters for Better Reasoning in LLMs [9.412828452977553]
  Existing approaches reinforce successful reasoning paths, incurring a substantial calibration cost.<n>This failure has been characterized as a form of model collapse in alignment.<n>We proposeEpiCaR as a training objective that jointly optimize reasoning performance and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T06:21:13Z)
• Geometric Calibration and Neutral Zones for Uncertainty-Aware Multi-Class Classification [0.0]
  This work bridges information geometry and statistical learning, offering formal guarantees for uncertainty-aware classification in applications requiring rigorous validation.<n> Empirical validation on Adeno-Associated Virus classification demonstrates that the two-stage framework captures 72.5% of errors while deferring 34.5% of samples, reducing automated decision error rates from 16.8% to 6.9%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T01:29:49Z)
• Generalized Correctness Models: Learning Calibrated and Model-Agnostic Correctness Predictors from Historical Patterns [67.24756301536617]
  We propose a Generalized Correctness Model (GCM) to generate accurate and calibrated confidence estimates.<n>We first show that GCMs can be trained on the correctness data from many LLMs.<n>We then use CMs as a lens for studying the source of correctness prediction ability and its generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T16:19:01Z)
• Beyond Binary Rewards: Training LMs to Reason About Their Uncertainty [59.97939500426759]
  This paper describes RLCR, an approach to training reasoning models that jointly improves accuracy and confidence estimation.<n>We show that across diverse datasets, RLCR substantially improves calibration with no loss in accuracy.<n>We also demonstrate that verbalized confidence can be leveraged at test time to improve accuracy and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T17:56:01Z)
• CLUE: Neural Networks Calibration via Learning Uncertainty-Error alignment [7.702016079410588]
  We introduce CLUE (Calibration via Learning Uncertainty-Error Alignment), a novel approach that aligns predicted uncertainty with observed error during training.<n>We show that CLUE achieves superior calibration quality and competitive predictive performance with respect to state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T19:23:47Z)
• Selective Learning: Towards Robust Calibration with Dynamic Regularization [79.92633587914659]
  Miscalibration in deep learning refers to there is a discrepancy between the predicted confidence and performance. We introduce Dynamic Regularization (DReg) which aims to learn what should be learned during training thereby circumventing the confidence adjusting trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T11:25:20Z)
• Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback [91.22679548111127]
  A trustworthy real-world prediction system should produce well-calibrated confidence scores. We show that verbalized confidences emitted as output tokens are typically better-calibrated than the model's conditional probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:12:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.