arxiv-2608-25894 · paper

From Passive Response to Proactive Correction: Enhancing LLM Robustness Against Input Fact Perturbations

Created: 2026-08-26 · Ingested: 2026-09-07

Large language models (LLMs) frequently produce confident yet factually incorrect responses when user inputs contain misleading premises, a phenomenon we attribute to fact perturbations in the input. Existing approaches to hallucination mitigation typically assume reliable user inputs, overlooking how such factual errors can actively mislead model reasoning. To address this vulnerability, we propose DEDUCE, a three- stage framework that transforms LLMs from passive responders into proactive error correctors. DEDUCE operates in three stages: (1) detect errors through fine-grained fact extraction

In brief

Chain-of-thought makes models worse when the question itself contains a false premise, because the reasoning elaborates the error rather than catching it. Explicitly decomposing the input into atomic claims and verifying them before answering fixes much of the gap.

DEDUCE is a 3-stage pipeline (detect atomic-fact errors, devise a correction strategy via Generator/Reviewer/Arbiter roles, then correct), implemented as prompting and as 2-stage LoRA tuning distilled from GPT-4o and Qwen2.5-14B teachers. Tested on TruthfulQA, FalseQA, and MisFactQA (a new set with false premises, internal contradictions, and compound errors) with Qwen2.5-7B, LlaMA-3.1-8B, Gemma3-12B, plus GPT-4o-mini and DeepSeek-V3.

Accuracy on matched questions falls sharply once errors are injected: Qwen2.5-7B from 75% to 45% (contradictory), 15% (false premise), 25% (complex). CoT on TruthfulQA drops below the plain baseline (Qwen 67.11 to 61.84; Gemma 63.74 to 61.11). DEDUCE-T reaches 79.59 on FalseQA for Gemma3-12B versus 53.60 for SFT; GPT-4o-mini goes 65.1% to 82.9% on MisFactQA, DeepSeek-V3 69.9% to 84.6%.

Ablations remove each module (the Devise strategy matters most), token counts are reported so cost is comparable to CoT and IAQ-FA, and the o3-mini judge is validated against humans (Cohen's kappa = 0.936, r = 0.916). Judge and teachers overlap with the evaluated setting; only 3 mid-scale open models were tuned; ambiguous or adversarial inputs were not tested.

If you rely on CoT for factual robustness, check whether your inputs carry premises first.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-09, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

supportsOn questions whose premises are false or internally contradictory, prompting mid-size instruct models (Qwen2.5-7B, LLaMA-3.1-8B, Gemma3-12B) to reason step by step can lower accuracy below plain answering, because the reasoning chain elaborates from the flawed premise instead of challenging it.