A Debate-Driven Experiment on LLM Hallucinations and Accuracy

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved a degree of success in generating coherent and contextually relevant text, yet they remain prone to a significant challenge known as hallucination: producing information that is not substantiated by the input or external knowledge. Previous efforts to mitigate hallucinations have focused on techniques such as fine-tuning models on high-quality datasets, incorporating fact-checking mechanisms, and developing adversarial training methods. While these approaches have shown some promise, they often address the issue at the level of individual model outputs, leaving unexplored the effects of inter-model interactions on hallucination. This study investigates the phenomenon of hallucination in LLMs through a novel experimental framework where multiple instances of GPT-4o-Mini models engage in a debate-like interaction prompted with questions from the TruthfulQA dataset. One model is deliberately instructed to generate plausible but false answers while the other models are asked to respond truthfully. The experiment is designed to assess whether the introduction of misinformation by one model can challenge the truthful majority to better justify their reasoning, improving performance on the TruthfulQA benchmark. The findings suggest that inter-model interactions can offer valuable insights into improving the accuracy and robustness of LLM outputs, complementing existing mitigation strategies.