--- name: ai-stopping-hallucinations description: Stop your AI from making things up. Use when your AI hallucinates, fabricates facts, isn't grounded in real data, doesn't cite sources, makes unsupported claims, or you need to verify AI responses against source material. Covers citation enforcement, faithfulness verification, grounding via retrieval, and confidence thresholds. --- # Stop Your AI From Making Things Up Guide the user through making their AI factually grounded. The core principle: never trust a bare LM output — always verify against sources. ## Why AI hallucinates LMs generate plausible-sounding text, not verified facts. Hallucination happens when: - The model has no source material to ground its answer - The prompt doesn't enforce citations or evidence - There's no verification step after generation - Temperature is too high for factual tasks The fix isn't better prompting — it's **programmatic constraints** that force grounding. ## Step 1: Understand the grounding situation Ask the user: 1. **Do you have source documents?** (knowledge base, docs, database) → use retrieval-grounded answers 2. **Is it general knowledge?** (no docs, just the model's knowledge) → use self-consistency checks 3. **How bad is a hallucination?** (annoying vs. dangerous) → determines how strict the checks should be ## Step 2: Citation enforcement Force the AI to cite sources for every claim. Uses `dspy.Assert` to reject answers without citations. ```python import dspy import re class CitedAnswer(dspy.Signature): """Answer the question using the provided sources. Cite every claim with [1], [2], etc.""" context: list[str] = dspy.InputField(desc="Numbered source documents") question: str = dspy.InputField() answer: str = dspy.OutputField(desc="Answer with inline citations like [1], [2]") class CitationEnforcer(dspy.Module): def __init__(self): self.answer = dspy.ChainOfThought(CitedAnswer) def forward(self, context, question): result = self.answer(context=context, question=question) # Every 1-2 sentences must have a citation sentences = [s.strip() for s in result.answer.split(".") if s.strip()] citations_found = [bool(re.search(r"\[\d+\]", s)) for s in sentences] # Check that at least half the sentences have citations citation_ratio = sum(citations_found) / max(len(sentences), 1) dspy.Assert( citation_ratio >= 0.5, "Answer must cite sources. Use [1], [2], etc. after claims. " f"Only {citation_ratio:.0%} of sentences have citations." ) # Check that cited numbers actually exist in the context cited_nums = set(int(n) for n in re.findall(r"\[(\d+)\]", result.answer)) valid_nums = set(range(1, len(context) + 1)) invalid = cited_nums - valid_nums dspy.Assert( len(invalid) == 0, f"Citations {invalid} don't match any source. Valid sources: [1] to [{len(context)}]." ) return result ``` ## Step 3: Faithfulness verification After generating an answer, use a second LM call to check if it's actually supported by the sources. ```python class CheckFaithfulness(dspy.Signature): """Check if every claim in the answer is supported by the context.""" context: list[str] = dspy.InputField(desc="Source documents") answer: str = dspy.InputField(desc="Generated answer to verify") is_faithful: bool = dspy.OutputField(desc="Is every claim supported by the context?") unsupported_claims: list[str] = dspy.OutputField(desc="Claims not found in context") class FaithfulResponder(dspy.Module): def __init__(self): self.retrieve = dspy.Retrieve(k=5) self.answer = dspy.ChainOfThought(CitedAnswer) self.verify = dspy.Predict(CheckFaithfulness) def forward(self, question): context = self.retrieve(question).passages result = self.answer(context=context, question=question) check = self.verify(context=context, answer=result.answer) dspy.Assert( check.is_faithful, f"Answer contains unsupported claims: {check.unsupported_claims}. " "Rewrite using only information from the provided sources." ) return result ``` When `dspy.Assert` fails, DSPy automatically retries the LM call, feeding back the error message so the model can self-correct. This retry loop (called backtracking) runs up to `max_backtrack_attempts` times (default: 2). ## Step 4: Self-check pattern Generate an answer, then ask the model to verify its own claims against the sources. Lightweight and good for most cases. ```python class SelfCheckedAnswer(dspy.Module): def __init__(self): self.answer = dspy.ChainOfThought("context, question -> answer") self.check = dspy.ChainOfThought(CheckFaithfulness) def forward(self, context, question): result = self.answer(context=context, question=question) verification = self.check(context=context, answer=result.answer) dspy.Suggest( verification.is_faithful, f"Some claims may not be supported: {verification.unsupported_claims}. " "Consider revising to stick closer to the sources." ) return dspy.Prediction( answer=result.answer, is_verified=verification.is_faithful, unsupported=verification.unsupported_claims, ) ``` Use `dspy.Suggest` (soft) instead of `dspy.Assert` (hard) when you want to flag issues without blocking the response. ## Step 5: Cross-check pattern Generate the answer twice independently, then compare. If two independent generations disagree, something is probably made up. ```python class CrossChecked(dspy.Module): def __init__(self): self.gen_a = dspy.ChainOfThought("context, question -> answer") self.gen_b = dspy.ChainOfThought("context, question -> answer") self.compare = dspy.Predict(CompareAnswers) def forward(self, context, question): a = self.gen_a(context=context, question=question) b = self.gen_b(context=context, question=question) check = self.compare(answer_a=a.answer, answer_b=b.answer) dspy.Assert( check.agree, f"Two independent answers disagree: {check.discrepancy}. " "This suggests hallucination. Regenerate with closer attention to sources." ) return a class CompareAnswers(dspy.Signature): """Check if two independently generated answers agree on the facts.""" answer_a: str = dspy.InputField() answer_b: str = dspy.InputField() agree: bool = dspy.OutputField(desc="Do they agree on all factual claims?") discrepancy: str = dspy.OutputField(desc="What they disagree on, if anything") ``` Best for high-stakes outputs where the cost of hallucination is high. Doubles your LM calls but catches inconsistencies. ## Step 6: Grounding via retrieval The single most effective anti-hallucination measure: give the AI source material and constrain it to that material. Connect to `/ai-searching-docs` for the full RAG setup. ```python class GroundedQA(dspy.Module): def __init__(self): self.retrieve = dspy.Retrieve(k=5) self.answer = dspy.ChainOfThought(CitedAnswer) self.verify = dspy.Predict(CheckFaithfulness) def forward(self, question): # Ground in retrieved sources context = self.retrieve(question).passages # Generate with citation requirement result = self.answer(context=context, question=question) # Verify faithfulness check = self.verify(context=context, answer=result.answer) dspy.Assert( check.is_faithful, f"Unsupported claims: {check.unsupported_claims}. " "Only use information from the provided sources." ) return result ``` ## Step 7: Confidence thresholds Flag low-confidence outputs for human review instead of showing them to users. ```python class ConfidenceGated(dspy.Signature): """Answer the question and rate your confidence.""" context: list[str] = dspy.InputField() question: str = dspy.InputField() answer: str = dspy.OutputField() confidence: float = dspy.OutputField(desc="0.0 to 1.0, how confident are you?") reasoning: str = dspy.OutputField(desc="Why this confidence level?") class GatedResponder(dspy.Module): def __init__(self, threshold=0.7): self.respond = dspy.ChainOfThought(ConfidenceGated) self.threshold = threshold def forward(self, context, question): result = self.respond(context=context, question=question) if result.confidence < self.threshold: return dspy.Prediction( answer=result.answer, needs_review=True, confidence=result.confidence, reason=result.reasoning, ) return dspy.Prediction( answer=result.answer, needs_review=False, confidence=result.confidence, ) ``` ## How backtracking works When `dspy.Assert` fails: 1. DSPy catches the assertion failure 2. The error message is fed back to the LM as additional context 3. The LM retries generation with the feedback ("your answer had unsupported claims X, Y") 4. This repeats up to `max_backtrack_attempts` times 5. If all retries fail, the assertion raises an error This is why good error messages matter — they're literally the feedback the model uses to improve. ## Choosing the right pattern | Pattern | Cost | Latency | Best for | |---------|------|---------|----------| | Citation enforcement | 1 LM call | Low | When you have numbered sources | | Faithfulness verification | 2 LM calls | Medium | RAG systems, doc Q&A | | Self-check | 2 LM calls | Medium | General fact-checking | | Cross-check | 3 LM calls | High | High-stakes, critical outputs | | Confidence gating | 1 LM call | Low | Human-in-the-loop systems | | Retrieval grounding | 1 retrieval + 1-2 LM | Medium | When you have a knowledge base | ## Key principles - **Grounding beats prompting.** Giving the AI sources to cite is more effective than asking it to "be accurate." - **Assert for critical facts.** Use `dspy.Assert` when hallucination is unacceptable (medical, legal, financial). - **Suggest for nice-to-haves.** Use `dspy.Suggest` when you want to flag but not block. - **Layer your defenses.** Combine retrieval + citation + verification for the strongest protection. - **Good error messages help.** The Assert message becomes the model's self-correction prompt. ## Additional resources - Use `/ai-searching-docs` for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) setup - Use `/ai-checking-outputs` for general output validation (format, safety, quality) - Use `/ai-following-rules` for enforcing business rules and content policies - See `examples.md` for complete worked examples