Skip to content

Is there a plan to reduce hallucinations? #200

@novvoo

Description

@novvoo

One of the critical challenges in using LLMs for scientific research is hallucination (e.g., fabricating citations, misinterpreting experimental results, or generating non-functional code). In a research context, accuracy and reproducibility are paramount, so this is likely a primary bottleneck for adoption.
I was wondering if there is a current roadmap or specific strategies planned to address this? For example:
Verification Steps: Implementing self-correction loops or external tool-based verification (e.g., running code to check outputs).
RAG & Grounding: Enhancing retrieval mechanisms to ensure claims are strictly grounded in provided papers/data.
Human-in-the-loop: Designing workflows that explicitly flag low-confidence steps for human review.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the project plans to tackle reliability. If this is a priority area, I (and likely others) would be happy to help explore solutions or contribute to related modules.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions