Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent, persuasive responses that nevertheless contain unsupported, outdated, or contradictory factual claims. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) reduces dependence on model parameters by supplying external evidence, but retrieval alone does not guarantee factuality: the evidence may be incomplete, irrelevant, conflicting, poorly ranked, or ignored during generation. This paper develops a transparent, evidence-grounded framework for detecting and mitigating factual hallucinations in RAG-based LLM applications. The framework treats factuality as a claim-level decision problem rather than a single response-level label. It combines query decomposition, hybrid retrieval, evidence quality assessment, atomic-claim extraction, claim-to-evidence verification, uncertainty calibration, source-linked generation, and risk-sensitive response control. A proposed evaluation protocol connects claim precision, evidence coverage, retrieval recall, citation correctness, abstention quality, latency, and human review. Existing methods—including SelfCheckGPT, FActScore, RAGAS, and Chain-of-Verification—are mapped to complementary parts of the pipeline rather than treated as interchangeable solutions. The paper is a framework and evaluation-design study; it does not report new model experiments or claim measured performance improvements. Its main contribution is a reproducible blueprint for testing whether an integrated system can reduce unsupported factual claims while preserving answer usefulness, traceability, and computational efficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zehua Zhou (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: