From Passive Response to Proactive Correction: Enhancing LLM Robustness Against Input Fact Perturbations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.25894v1
• Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:13:50 GMT
• Title: From Passive Response to Proactive Correction: Enhancing LLM Robustness Against Input Fact Perturbations
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) produce confident yet factually incorrect responses when user inputs contain misleading premises.<n>We propose DEDUCE, a three-stage framework that transforms LLMs from passive responders into proactive error correctors.<n> Experiments on TruthfulQA, FalseQA, and our MisFactQA benchmark demonstrate that DEDUCE significantly improves both accuracy and error correction capability.
• Score: 12.021107313829082
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• On the Limits of LLM Adaptability: Impact of Model-Internalized Priors on Annotation Task Performance [0.7303825588015752]
  We investigate how model-internalized priors interact with user-provided instructions.<n>We find that nearly two-thirds of zero-shot errors are resistant to correction.<n>High-confidence errors prove especially resistant to correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T01:21:14Z)
• Knowing but Not Correcting: Routine Task Requests Suppress Factual Correction in LLMs [26.062372963777452]
  LLMs reliably correct false claims when presented in isolation, yet when the same claims are embedded in task-oriented requests, they often comply rather than correct.<n>We term this failure mode emphcorrection suppression and construct a benchmark of 300 false premises to systematically evaluate it across eight models.<n> Suppression rates range from 19% to 90%, with four models exceeding 80%, establishing correction suppression as a prevalent and severe phenomenon.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T10:04:39Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• 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)
• Towards Comprehensive Stage-wise Benchmarking of Large Language Models in Fact-Checking [64.97768177044355]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world fact-checking systems.<n>We present FactArena, a fully automated arena-style evaluation framework.<n>Our analyses reveal significant discrepancies between static claim-verification accuracy and end-to-end fact-checking competence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T02:51:56Z)
• Self-Correction Bench: Uncovering and Addressing the Self-Correction Blind Spot in Large Language Models [0.7910367295422812]
  Large language models (LLMs) make mistakes and can explore unproductive reasoning paths.<n>Self-correction capability is essential for deploying LLMs in safety-critical applications.<n>We uncover a systematic failure: LLMs cannot correct errors in their own outputs while successfully correcting identical errors from external sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T16:41:30Z)
• Fewer Hallucinations, More Verification: A Three-Stage LLM-Based Framework for ASR Error Correction [4.304383298057423]
  We propose the Reliable Correction Framework (RLLM-CF), which consists of three stages: error pre-detection, chain-of-thought sub-tasks iterative correction, and reasoning process verification.<n>Experiments on AISHELL-1, AISHELL-2, and Librispeech show that the GPT-4o model enhanced by our framework achieves 21%, 11%, 9%, and 11.4% relative reductions in CER/WER.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T08:40:49Z)
• Too Consistent to Detect: A Study of Self-Consistent Errors in LLMs [87.79350168490475]
  This work formally defines self-consistent errors and evaluates mainstream detection methods on them.<n>All four types of detection methods significantly struggle to detect self-consistent errors.<n>Motivated by the observation that self-consistent errors often differ across LLMs, we propose a simple but effective cross-model probe.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T09:18:56Z)
• Latent Veracity Inference for Identifying Errors in Stepwise Reasoning [78.29317733206643]
  We introduce Veracity Search (VS), a discrete search algorithm over veracity assignments.<n>It performs otherwise intractable inference in the posterior distribution over latent veracity values.<n>It generalizes VS, enabling accurate zero-shot veracity inference in novel contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T04:16:36Z)
• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• FactCHD: Benchmarking Fact-Conflicting Hallucination Detection [64.4610684475899]
  FactCHD is a benchmark designed for the detection of fact-conflicting hallucinations from LLMs. FactCHD features a diverse dataset that spans various factuality patterns, including vanilla, multi-hop, comparison, and set operation. We introduce Truth-Triangulator that synthesizes reflective considerations by tool-enhanced ChatGPT and LoRA-tuning based on Llama2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T16:27:49Z)
• Lyra: Orchestrating Dual Correction in Automated Theorem Proving [63.115422781158934]
  Lyra is a new framework that employs two distinct correction mechanisms: Tool Correction and Conjecture Correction. Tool Correction contributes to mitigating hallucinations, thereby improving the overall accuracy of the proof. Conjecture Correction refines generation with instruction but does not collect paired (generation, error & refinement) prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-27T17:29:41Z)
• Zero-shot Faithful Factual Error Correction [53.121642212060536]
  Faithfully correcting factual errors is critical for maintaining the integrity of textual knowledge bases and preventing hallucinations in sequence-to-sequence models. We present a zero-shot framework that formulates questions about input claims, looks for correct answers in the given evidence, and assesses the faithfulness of each correction based on its consistency with the evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-13T18:55:20Z)

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.