You reduce LLM hallucinations by grounding responses in retrieved data (RAG), forcing the model to cite its sources, constraining outputs, and running an evaluation set to catch regressions. You can't eliminate hallucinations entirely, so also design for graceful uncertainty and keep a human in the loop where the stakes are high.
Techniques that work
- Ground answers in your data with RAG, so the model reasons over retrieved facts instead of guessing.
- Require citations to the provided sources, and reject answers that can't be grounded.
- Use structured or constrained outputs (schemas) so the model stays on the rails.
- Lower the temperature for factual tasks; save creativity for where it belongs.
- Prompt the model to say 'I don't know' rather than fabricate.
- Re-rank retrieved context so the best evidence is what the model sees.
Measure it, or it drifts
Build an evaluation set of real questions with known-good answers, and track grounding and accuracy on every change. Without measurement, quality degrades silently as prompts, data, and models change. We treat evaluation as a first-class part of every AI build.
Design for uncertainty
Since no model is perfect, surface confidence, show sources so users can verify, and route high-stakes outputs through human review. Designing for uncertainty is what makes an AI feature safe to ship, not just impressive in a demo.
