Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Hallucination Mitigation using Agentic AI Natural Language-Based Frameworks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Routing LLM outputs through two successive reviewer agents that pass structured natural-language notes measurably reduces a composite hallucination score across 310 crafted prompts.

desk verdict A useful exhibition of OVON inter-agent messaging, but the THS metric rewards disclaimer insertion rather than factuality, so the central hallucination-mitigation claim is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13946 v1 pith:2AEWQCR4 submitted 2025-01-19 cs.CL cs.AIcs.MA

Diego Gosmar , Deborah A. Dahl This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.MA
keywords hallucinationmitigationmulti-agentorchestrationagenticAIlargelanguagemodelsOVONinteroperabilitynaturalAPIsKPIsexplainability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that passing an LLM's initial answer through two successive reviewer agents—each instructed to flag unverified claims and insert explicit disclaimers—progressively lowers a composite hallucination score. On 310 prompts deliberately built to elicit fabrication, the mean Total Hallucination Score moves from $-0.0049$ for the front-end agent to $-0.0456$ after the second-level reviewer to $-0.1396$ after the third-level reviewer, with the authors reporting this trend as statistically significant. The intended payoff is practical: hallucination mitigation does not require replacing the generator; it can be achieved by orchestration, provided the agents hand off context through structured natural-language messages. The paper also proposes four KPIs that quantify how 'fact-sounding' and how explicitly disclaimed a response is, so that shifts in hallucination behavior can be measured and audited.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the OVON 'conversation envelope,' a JSON format in which the utterance event carries rewritten text and the whisper event carries a natural-language explanation of hallucination likelihood (a context summary capped at 30 words and a reasons field capped at 200 words). The second-level reviewer emits this envelope and the third-level reviewer interprets it, which is what lets the refinement build on prior analysis instead of starting fresh. The four KPIs are Factual Claim Density (fact-sounding claims per 100 words), Factual Grounding References (explicit appeals to real-world evidence), Fictional Disclaimer Frequency (explicit fiction markers per 100 words), and Explicit Contextualization Score (normalized count of overt fictional-framing phrases). They are combined into the composite score $\mathrm{THS} = \mathrm{FCD} - (\mathrm{FGR}+\mathrm{FDF}+\mathrm{ECS})/N_A$, with all four weights set to 0.25 in this experiment; because more disclaimers and less fact-sounding phrasing push the value more negative, the pipeline's success is registered by a single number that falls at each stage.

What would settle it

Run the same 310 prompts through the pipeline and have independent human fact-checkers score the front-end and third-level outputs for factual accuracy and disclaimer adequacy; if the more negative THS3 outputs are not also judged more accurate or more clearly labeled as speculative, the claimed mitigation is an artifact of the scoring metric. A sharper test: take third-level outputs, delete all disclaimers without changing any facts, and recompute the THS—the score would rise even though factuality is unchanged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that structured multi-agent review measurably reduces the paper's Total Hallucination Score across a large, deliberately adversarial prompt set. The front-end agent produces fluent but often ungrounded narrative; the second-level reviewer rewrites the text, adds disclaimers, and attaches a short 'whisper context' plus a detailed 'whisper value' describing the hallucination risk; the third-level reviewer consumes that JSON envelope and produces a final, more explicitly framed version. The authors attribute the monotone improvement—both in mean scores and in aggregate totals, from $-1.52$ to $-14.12$ to $-43.27$—to this iterative layering and to the OVON message handoff that preserves the second agent's reasoning. A direct corollary they draw is that content becomes more transparent, with speculative material clearly demarcated from factual claims, even when the underlying facts remain unverifiable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the KPI-based Total Hallucination Score, which is computed by an LLM evaluator from surface features like how many claims sound factual and how often disclaimers appear, actually tracks hallucination or factuality—a point the paper itself states when it says these KPIs do not rely on absolute factual truth and are not an infallible benchmark.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result holds, a concrete recipe exists for lowering hallucination scores: add a rewriting agent that inserts disclaimers, add a second refining agent, and pass a short structured explanation of hallucination risk between them.
  • The OVON JSON handoff can be extended to all inter-agent exchanges, not just the second-to-third transition, which the paper explicitly leaves as future work.
  • The wide prompt-to-prompt variance—a roughly 700% score reduction for the Library of Avencord prompt versus 33% for the telepathic-canines prompt—implies the method works best when speculative content can be anchored to familiar real-world concepts.
  • The KPI formulas provide an automated, auditable target for comparing reviewer prompts, agent models, and pipeline depths without human annotation of every response.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: because the THS rewards disclaimers and penalizes fact-sounding phrasing, the pipeline may be lowering the appearance of hallucination as much or more than the factual error rate; an independent human factuality benchmark would separate the two effects.
  • A direct ablation test follows from the paper's design: run the same three-agent pipeline but send only the plain rewritten text to the third agent, omitting the OVON whisper fields; any THS gap would isolate the contribution of structured context transfer from the contribution of a second generic rewrite.
  • The same four KPIs could be reused outside hallucination research as a transparency score—for example, to measure how much of any AI answer is presented as fact versus explicitly labeled speculation.
  • Because the front-end model is older and weaker than the reviewers, part of the improvement may reflect model capability differences rather than the agentic orchestration; a same-model baseline would test that confound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-agent pipeline for LLM hallucination mitigation: a front-end GPT-3.5-turbo agent answers 310 prompts designed to induce hallucinations; a second-level GPT-4o reviewer rewrites with explicit disclaimers and generates OVON JSON utterances and whispers; a third-level GPT-4o reviewer further refines the text; and a fourth GPT-4o agent computes four new KPIs (Factual Claim Density, Factual Grounding References, Fictional Disclaimer Frequency, Explicit Contextualization Score) and a Total Hallucination Score (THS). The authors report that the mean THS decreases from -0.0049 to -0.0456 to -0.1396 across the three agent stages and interpret this as evidence that multi-agent orchestration, especially with OVON-based JSON exchanges, mitigates hallucinations.

Significance. If the THS were a valid measure of hallucination and the experimental design included appropriate controls, the paper would be a useful practical demonstration of an open-standard NLP-based agent interoperability framework for hallucination mitigation, with a welcome public repository of prompts and results. The proposed OVON JSON message exchange is a concrete contribution to agentic AI interoperability. However, the claimed empirical evidence is not credible as presented: the outcome metric is defined to reward the very behaviors the agents are explicitly instructed to produce, and the manuscript's own limitations section concedes that the KPIs are not a benchmark of factual correctness. The framework idea is interesting, but the central claim that the pipeline mitigates hallucinations is not supported by the reported experiments.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Eq. (1); §5, agent prompts; Table 2] The THS formula includes FDF and ECS with negative signs, so any increase in explicit disclaimers or contextualization statements lowers THS by construction. Section 5 instructs the second- and third-level agents to "Explicit disclaimers wherever content is speculative or fictional, even if it is a repetition," while the front-end agent is told "Do not ever add any explicit disclaimer." Thus the monotone decrease in mean THS in Table 2 (-0.0049, -0.0456, -0.1396) is a direct consequence of the agents following those instructions. No control condition (e.g., a rewriting agent without disclaimer instructions) and no external factuality measure (e.g., known-answer prompts, human fact-checking, or an established factuality benchmark) is reported, so the observed THS reduction does not demonstrate hallucination mitigation.
  2. [§8, Limitations; §4, Hallucination KPIs] The limitations section states that the KPIs "do not offer an infallible benchmark for factual correctness," and Section 4 says they "don't rely only on absolute factual truth." Since the central claim of the paper is hallucination mitigation—a factual-correctness phenomenon—the proposed metric cannot bear that claim by itself. The paper needs an external criterion linking THS reductions to real reductions in factually wrong or fabricated content. Without such validation, the results measure surface-level lexical framing rather than hallucination.
  3. [§5, Empirical Results; §7, Result discussion] The paper claims the results are "statistically significant, as shown by a one-way Analysis of Variance," but no test statistic, p-value, or effect size is reported, making the claim unverifiable. In addition, Section 7 reports "THS1 of -1.52," "THS2 plummets to -14.12," and "THS3 to -43.27," which are inconsistent with the per-prompt means in Table 2 unless they are cumulative sums over 310 prompts, which is not stated. The "percentage reductions surpassing 800%" and "nearly 2,800%" are computed from negative scores and are misleading without careful definition of the baseline.
  4. [§6, Use case] The use-case example concretely illustrates the evaluation artifact: the Library of Avencord response shows THS decreasing from -0.0083 to -0.0667 while FCD changes only from 0.2 to 0.1 and FGR actually increases from 0.1 to 0.2. The entire score reduction is driven by FDF (0.1 to 0.3) and ECS (0.1 to 0.4)—exactly the disclaimer-related metrics that the second- and third-level agents are prompted to increase. This example shows that the reported improvement is an instruction-following effect rather than evidence of correcting fabricated content.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References [8], [9]] The titles of references [8] and [9] contain a typo: "hallucinatoin" should be "hallucination."
  2. [References [21], [13]] The citation numbering is inconsistent: Section 1 cites Automated Design of Agentic Systems (ADAS) as [21], but Section 9 cites the same concept as [13], and reference [21] is the "Hallucination is Inevitable" paper. Please re-map the references properly.
  3. [§4, Eq. (1)] The symbol NA is used to denote the number of agents, but NA is easily read as "not available." Use a different notation, such as N_agents, and define it before the equation.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] The text describes spikes, dips, and prompt IDs in Figures 2 and 3, but the figures are not accompanied by explicit axis labels or units. Ensure that figure files include labeled axes and that the y-axis is identified as THS or Delta THS with clear units.
  5. [§7, Result discussion] The statements "surpassing 800%" and "nearly 2,800%" reductions should be re-expressed in a way that is not misleading for negative-valued scores, or the baseline should be explicitly defined.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

THS is defined to reward exactly the disclaimers the downstream agents are instructed to add, so the reported 'hallucination mitigation' is an instruction-following artifact.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, 'Hallucination KPIs' (THS formula and interpretation)]
    "These KPIs don't rely only on absolute factual truth but rather on linguistic and stylistic indicators... THS = FCD − (FGR + FDF + ECS)/NA ... A more negative THS indicates fewer hallucinations, as it suggests stronger disclaimers, fewer claims requiring factual grounding, and lower factual claim density."

    The outcome metric subtracts FDF and ECS, so any response that adds disclaimers or explicit fictional contextualization automatically lowers THS regardless of whether underlying factual errors are corrected. The paper's evidence of mitigation is exactly this more-negative THS. Since the later agents are instructed to add disclaimers, the THS decline is the metric itself rewarding the intervention: the 'hallucination mitigation' conclusion is built into the definition of the score.

  2. self definitional [Section 5, 'Empirical Results' (agent system prompts)]
    "Front End Agent: 'Do not ever add any explicit disclaimer wherever content is speculative or fictional...' Second Level Reviewer: 'Explicit disclaimers wherever content is speculative or fictional to ensure users are aware of its nature, even if it is a repetition.' Third Level Reviewer: 'Explicit disclaimers wherever content is speculative or fictional to ensure users are aware of its nature, even if it is a repetition.'"

    The intervention consists of forbidding disclaimers in the first agent and explicitly requiring them in the second and third agents. The THS formula gives negative weight to disclaimers (FDF) and contextualization (ECS). Therefore the reported mean decrease (−0.0049 → −0.0456 → −0.1396) is largely an instruction-following artifact. A control that keeps disclaimer behavior constant while correcting facts, or an external factuality metric, would be needed to show that the pipeline mitigates hallucinations rather than merely adding the exact phrases the score rewards.

full rationale

The central empirical claim—that the multi-agent OVON pipeline mitigates hallucinations—is supported only by the paper's own Total Hallucination Score. That score is definitionally built so that FDF and ECS lower THS, and the pipeline's agent prompts forbid disclaimers at level 1 and mandate them at levels 2 and 3. Table 2's monotone decrease is therefore, to a first approximation, the metric rewarding the instructed behavior. The paper itself states in Section 8 that the KPIs 'do not offer an infallible benchmark for factual correctness' and in Section 4 that they 'don't rely only on absolute factual truth,' so no independent factuality check is offered. The related-work citations and OVON self-citations are not load-bearing for this particular circularity; the issue is not that the authors cite themselves, but that the outcome variable and the intervention are defined on the same surface features (disclaimers and contextualization). Without a control or an external factuality benchmark, the observed THS drop cannot support the strongest claim of hallucination mitigation. Score 8 reflects definitional circularity rather than fraud or fit-to-data.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical case rests on the validity of the KPI evaluator, the representativeness of the author-generated prompts, and the reliability of self-generated OVON whisper metadata. The only explicit numeric free parameter is the equal weighting of KPI components in the THS formula. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced; the KPIs and OVON message fields are evaluation metrics and data formats, not entities of the kind tracked by this ledger.

free parameters (1)
  • THS KPI weights w1-w4 = 0.25 each
    Section 4 declares w1=w2=w3=w4=0.25 with no justification. The formula is crafted so that adding disclaimers (FDF, ECS) lowers THS. The central result (THS1 > THS2 > THS3) is sensitive to this weighting, though no sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The LLM-based KPI evaluator (GPT-4o) reliably scores FCD, FGR, FDF, ECS and thus THS as a valid measure of hallucination level.
    Section 4 defines the KPIs as the outcome measure, but Section 8 admits they 'do not rely on absolute factual truth' and are not an infallible benchmark. The entire empirical result stands or falls on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The 310 synthetically generated prompts are representative of hallucination-inducing inputs and the resulting agent outputs are a fair test of mitigation.
    Section 3 describes the prompts as created by the authors using GPT-o1 with deliberate techniques to induce hallucinations; there is no independent or standard prompt set.
  • domain assumption The OVON whisper context and value fields are correctly generated and interpreted by the second and third agents, and their content is accurate.
    Section 3 and Section 6 rely on the whisper messages to transmit hallucination information. The second agent both writes the response and produces the whisper, so the metadata is self-generated and never independently validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hallucination Mitigation using Agentic AI Natural Language-Based Frameworks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2AEWQCR4

@misc{pith2026250113946,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hallucination Mitigation using Agentic AI Natural Language-Based Frameworks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2AEWQCR4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13946}
}
read the original abstract

Hallucinations remain a significant challenge in current Generative AI models, undermining trust in AI systems and their reliability. This study investigates how orchestrating multiple specialized Artificial Intelligent Agents can help mitigate such hallucinations, with a focus on systems leveraging Natural Language Processing (NLP) to facilitate seamless agent interactions. To achieve this, we design a pipeline that introduces over three hundred prompts, purposefully crafted to induce hallucinations, into a front-end agent. The outputs are then systematically reviewed and refined by second- and third-level agents, each employing distinct large language models and tailored strategies to detect unverified claims, incorporate explicit disclaimers, and clarify speculative content. Additionally, we introduce a set of novel Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) specifically designed to evaluate hallucination score levels. A dedicated fourth-level AI agent is employed to evaluate these KPIs, providing detailed assessments and ensuring accurate quantification of shifts in hallucination-related behaviors. A core component of this investigation is the use of the OVON (Open Voice Network) framework, which relies on universal NLP-based interfaces to transfer contextual information among agents. Through structured JSON messages, each agent communicates its assessment of the hallucination likelihood and the reasons underlying questionable content, thereby enabling the subsequent stage to refine the text without losing context. The results demonstrate that employing multiple specialized agents capable of interoperating with each other through NLP-based agentic frameworks can yield promising outcomes in hallucination mitigation, ultimately bolstering trust within the AI community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13946 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-Agent Scenario for Hallucination Mitigation Evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. THS results over 310 prompts with 3 agents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Delta THS hallucination mitigation by prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total THS per agent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: focuses explicitly on the percentage reduction in hallucination score when moving from the 1st-level (Front End Agent) to the 2nd-level (Second Level Reviewer) and then from the 1st-level to the 3rd-level (Third Level Reviewer). This figure highlights the relative gain…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gaussian data dispersions for THS1, THS2, and THS3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Cost of Knowing: A Resource-Aware Protocol for Benchmarking Hallucination Beyond Static Leaderboards

    cs.AI 2026-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    MAS-HQ defines a resource-aware Q-Score and shows that the system with the highest raw factuality is often not the winner once normalized cost is subtracted.

  2. AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Research

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes AI-for-research work into five tasks, comprehension, survey, discovery, writing, and peer review, and compiles associated tools and benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Open voice interoper- ability dialog conversation envelop specifications

    David Attwater, Emmett Coin, Deborah Dahl, Leah Barnes, Allan Wylie, and Diego Gosmar. Open voice interoper- ability dialog conversation envelop specifications. https://github.com/open-voice-interoperability/ docs/blob/main/specifications/ConversationEnvelope/0.9.3/InteroperableConvEnvSpec.md, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Open voice interoperability specifications

    David Attwater, Emmett Coin, Deborah Dahl, Leah Barnes, Allan Wylie, and Diego Gosmar. Open voice interoperability specifications. https://github.com/open-voice-interoperability/docs/tree/main/ specifications, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    AutoGen Authors. Autogen. an open-source programming framework for agentic ai. https://microsoft. github.io/autogen/, 2024. 17 A PREPRINT - JANUARY 27, 2025

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Automatic satire detection: are you having a laugh? In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers, ACLShort ’09, page 161–164, USA, 2009

    Clint Burfoot and Timothy Baldwin. Automatic satire detection: are you having a laugh? In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers, ACLShort ’09, page 161–164, USA, 2009. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Signposts of fictionality: A narratological perspective

    Dorrit Cohn. Signposts of fictionality: A narratological perspective. Poetics Today, 11:775, 1990

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Agent ai: Surveying the horizons of multimodal interaction

    Zane Durante, Qiuyuan Huang, Naoki Wake, Ran Gong, Jae Sung Park, Bidipta Sarkar, Rohan Taori, Yusuke Noda, Demetri Terzopoulos, Yejin Choi, Katsushi Ikeuchi, Hoi V o, Li Fei-Fei, and Jianfeng Gao. Agent ai: Surveying the horizons of multimodal interaction. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.03568, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Conversational hyperconvergence: an onlife evolution model for conversational ai agency

    Diego Gosmar. Conversational hyperconvergence: an onlife evolution model for conversational ai agency. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00463-0 , 2024

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00463-0 2024

  8. [8]

    Multi agent agentic hallucinatoin evaluator

    Diego Gosmar. Multi agent agentic hallucinatoin evaluator. https://github.com/diegogosmar/hall_ evaluator/blob/main/pipeline_results_with_ths.csv, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    Multi agent agentic hallucinatoin evaluator

    Diego Gosmar. Multi agent agentic hallucinatoin evaluator. https://github.com/diegogosmar/hall_ evaluator, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Dahl, and Emmett Coin

    Diego Gosmar, Deborah A. Dahl, and Emmett Coin. Conversational ai multi-agent interoperability, universal open apis for agentic natural language multimodal communications. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19438, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dahl, Emmett Coin, and David Attwater

    Diego Gosmar, Deborah A. Dahl, Emmett Coin, and David Attwater. Ai multi-agent interoperability extension for managing multiparty conversations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.05828, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Toward automated fact-checking: Detecting check-worthy factual claims by claimbuster

    Naeemul Hassan, Fatma Arslan, Chengkai Li, and Mark Tremayne. Toward automated fact-checking: Detecting check-worthy factual claims by claimbuster. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’17, page 1803–1812, N...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Automated design of agentic systems

    Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, and Jeff Clune. Automated design of agentic systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408. 08435, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Introducing the interoperability initiative of the open voice network.https: //voiceinteroperability.ai/, 2023

    Open V oice Interoperable initiative. Introducing the interoperability initiative of the open voice network.https: //voiceinteroperability.ai/, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Good parenting is all you need – multi-agentic llm hallucination mitigation

    Ted Kwartler, Matthew Berman, and Alan Aqrawi. Good parenting is all you need – multi-agentic llm hallucination mitigation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14262, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Interpreting and mitigating hallucination in mllms through multi-agent debate

    Zheng Lin, Zhenxing Niu, Zhibin Wang, and Yinghui Xu. Interpreting and mitigating hallucination in mllms through multi-agent debate. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20505, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Stable classification of text genres

    Philipp Petrenz and Bonnie Webber. Stable classification of text genres. Comput. Linguist., 37(2):385–393, June 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Measuring attribution in natural language generation models

    Hannah Rashkin, Vitaly Nikolaev, Matthew Lamm, Lora Aroyo, Michael Collins, Dipanjan Das, Slav Petrov, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Iulia Turc, and David Reitter. Measuring attribution in natural language generation models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12870, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Agency definition, stanford encyclopedia of philosophy archive

    Markus Schlosser. Agency definition, stanford encyclopedia of philosophy archive. https://plato.stanford. edu/archives/fall2015/entries/agency/, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    A survey on large language model based autonomous agents

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, Wayne Xin Zhao, Zhewei Wei, and Jirong Wen. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6), March 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models

    Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan Kankanhalli. Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817, 2024. 18

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.