Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Order Matters in Hallucination: Reasoning Order as Benchmark and Reflexive Prompting for Large-Language-Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.05093 v4 pith:V6VTQF42 submitted 2024-08-09 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords llmsreasoningbenchmarkorderacrossanswersconsistencydiscovered
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have generated significant attention since their inception, finding applications across various academic and industrial domains. However, these models often suffer from the "hallucination problem", where outputs, though grammatically and logically coherent, lack factual accuracy or are entirely fabricated. A particularly troubling issue discovered and widely discussed recently is the numerical comparison error where multiple LLMs incorrectly infer that "9.11$>$9.9". We discovered that the order in which LLMs generate answers and reasoning impacts their consistency. Specifically, results vary significantly when an LLM generates an answer first and then provides the reasoning versus generating the reasoning process first and then the conclusion. Inspired by this, we propose a new benchmark method for assessing LLM consistency: comparing responses generated through these two different approaches. This benchmark effectively identifies instances where LLMs fabricate answers and subsequently generate justifications. Furthermore, we introduce a novel and straightforward prompt strategy designed to mitigate this issue. Experimental results demonstrate that this strategy improves performance across various LLMs compared to direct questioning. This work not only sheds light on a critical flaw in LLMs but also offers a practical solution to enhance their reliability.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Benchmarking Large Language Models on Multi-Sensor Physical Hazard Assessment

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In 20 synthetic multi-sensor scenarios with combined exposure above the additive index but every sensor below its individual limit, all five tested LLMs rarely issued precautionary warnings, while scoring near-perfect...

  2. A Comprehensive Survey on Trustworthiness in Reasoning with Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A structured literature survey concluding that reasoning capabilities do not automatically make LLMs more trustworthy and can introduce new vulnerabilities in safety, robustness, and privacy.

  3. Relative Bias: A Comparative Framework for Quantifying Bias in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A model is 'relatively biased' when its responses deviate from the consensus of a baseline LLM set, and this deviation can be scored by embedding distances or LLM judges plus equivalence tests.

Pith tools