Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Mitigating LLM Hallucinations through Domain-Grounded Tiered Retrieval

Md. Asraful Haque, Aasar Mehdi, Maaz Mahboob, Tamkeen Fatima

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented fluency but remain susceptible to "hallucinations" - the generation of factually incorrect or ungrounded content. This limitation is particularly critical in high-stakes domains where reliability is paramount. We propose a domain-grounded tiered retrieval and verification architecture designed to systematically intercept factual inaccuracies by shifting LLMs from stochastic pattern-matchers to verified truth-seekers. The proposed framework utilizes a four-phase, self-regulating pipeline implemented via LangGraph: (I) Intrinsic Verification with Early-Exit logic to optimize compute, (II) Adaptive Search Routing utilizing a Domain Detector to target subject-specific archives, (III) Corrective Document Grading (CRAG) to filter irrelevant context, and (IV) Extrinsic Regeneration followed by atomic claim-level verification. The system was evaluated across 650 queries from five diverse benchmarks: TimeQA v2, FreshQA v2, HaluEval General, MMLU Global Facts, and TruthfulQA. Empirical results demonstrate that the pipeline consistently outperforms zero-shot baselines across all environments. Win rates peaked at 83.7% in TimeQA v2 and 78.0% in MMLU Global Facts, confirming high efficacy in domains requiring granular temporal and numerical precision. Groundedness scores remained robustly stable between 78.8% and 86.4% across factual-answer rows. While the architecture provides a robust fail-safe for misinformation, a persistent failure mode of "False-Premise Overclaiming" was identified. These findings provide a detailed empirical characterization of multi-stage RAG behavior and suggest that future work should prioritize pre-retrieval "answerability" nodes to further bridge the reliability gap in conversational AI.

Mitigating LLM Hallucinations through Domain-Grounded Tiered Retrieval

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented fluency but remain susceptible to "hallucinations" - the generation of factually incorrect or ungrounded content. This limitation is particularly critical in high-stakes domains where reliability is paramount. We propose a domain-grounded tiered retrieval and verification architecture designed to systematically intercept factual inaccuracies by shifting LLMs from stochastic pattern-matchers to verified truth-seekers. The proposed framework utilizes a four-phase, self-regulating pipeline implemented via LangGraph: (I) Intrinsic Verification with Early-Exit logic to optimize compute, (II) Adaptive Search Routing utilizing a Domain Detector to target subject-specific archives, (III) Corrective Document Grading (CRAG) to filter irrelevant context, and (IV) Extrinsic Regeneration followed by atomic claim-level verification. The system was evaluated across 650 queries from five diverse benchmarks: TimeQA v2, FreshQA v2, HaluEval General, MMLU Global Facts, and TruthfulQA. Empirical results demonstrate that the pipeline consistently outperforms zero-shot baselines across all environments. Win rates peaked at 83.7% in TimeQA v2 and 78.0% in MMLU Global Facts, confirming high efficacy in domains requiring granular temporal and numerical precision. Groundedness scores remained robustly stable between 78.8% and 86.4% across factual-answer rows. While the architecture provides a robust fail-safe for misinformation, a persistent failure mode of "False-Premise Overclaiming" was identified. These findings provide a detailed empirical characterization of multi-stage RAG behavior and suggest that future work should prioritize pre-retrieval "answerability" nodes to further bridge the reliability gap in conversational AI.
Paper Structure (12 sections, 5 figures, 4 tables, 1 algorithm)

This paper contains 12 sections, 5 figures, 4 tables, 1 algorithm.

Figures (5)

  • Figure 1: Consequences of LLM Hallucinations
  • Figure 2: Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Hallucination
  • Figure 3: Proposed Framework
  • Figure 4: Benchmark Win Rate Comparison
  • Figure 5: Realibility Heatmap (Benchmarks vs Error Types)