Investigating the Role of Prompting and External Tools in Hallucination Rates of Large Language Models
It addresses the problem of inaccuracies in LLMs for users in NLP and AI, but is incremental as it builds on existing prompting methods.
This paper empirically evaluates prompting strategies and tool-calling agents to reduce hallucinations in Large Language Models, finding that simpler techniques often outperform complex ones and that external tools can increase hallucination rates.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful computational models trained on extensive corpora of human-readable text, enabling them to perform general-purpose language understanding and generation. LLMs have garnered significant attention in both industry and academia due to their exceptional performance across various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. Despite these successes, LLMs often produce inaccuracies, commonly referred to as hallucinations. Prompt engineering, the process of designing and formulating instructions for LLMs to perform specific tasks, has emerged as a key approach to mitigating hallucinations. This paper provides a comprehensive empirical evaluation of different prompting strategies and frameworks aimed at reducing hallucinations in LLMs. Various prompting techniques are applied to a broad set of benchmark datasets to assess the accuracy and hallucination rate of each method. Additionally, the paper investigates the influence of tool-calling agents (LLMs augmented with external tools to enhance their capabilities beyond language generation) on hallucination rates in the same benchmarks. The findings demonstrate that the optimal prompting technique depends on the type of problem, and that simpler techniques often outperform more complex methods in reducing hallucinations. Furthermore, it is shown that LLM agents can exhibit significantly higher hallucination rates due to the added complexity of external tool usage.