Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Grounded Optimization: A Layered Engineering Framework for Reducing LLM Hallucination in Automated Personal Document Rewriting

Shashank Indukuri, Adarsh Agrawal · Jul 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to resume optimization for applicant tracking systems, introducing hallucination failures distinct from general text generation: anachronistic technology injection, cross-domain terminology contamination, structural mutation, and content fabrication. We present Grounded Optimization, a five-layer framework combining temporal context validation, deterministic contamination detection, structural invariant enforcement, prompt-level grounding, and an evaluator agent. In ablation experiments across three LLMs, four temperature settings, and six layer configurations on 25 synthetic resumes spanning 14 industries, undefended baselines produce 2.48-5.36 detected hallucinations per resume. Among detectors independent of the active defenses, temporal hallucinations are reduced by 50-95% across all conditions; overall detected hallucination rate falls to 0.04-0.24. Prompt-level grounding alone achieves zero detected hallucinations at low temperature with a capable instruction-following model; higher temperatures and weaker models reveal the need for the deterministic layers as a complement. We release the contamination taxonomy, evaluation code, and raw data.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to resume optimization for applicant tracking systems, introducing hallucination failures distinct from general text generation: anachronistic technology injection, cross-domain terminology contamination, structural mutation, and content fabrication."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to resume optimization for applicant tracking systems, introducing hallucination failures distinct from general text generation: anachronistic technology injection, cross-domain terminology contamination, structural mutation, and content fabrication."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to resume optimization for applicant tracking systems, introducing hallucination failures distinct from general text generation: anachronistic technology injection, cross-domain terminology contamination, structural mutation, and content fabrication."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to resume optimization for applicant tracking systems, introducing hallucination failures distinct from general text generation: anachronistic technology injection, cross-domain terminology contamination, structural mutation, and content fabrication."

Reported Metrics

partial

Hallucination rate

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Among detectors independent of the active defenses, temporal hallucinations are reduced by 50-95% across all conditions; overall detected hallucination rate falls to 0.04-0.24."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

hallucination rate

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to resume optimization for applicant tracking systems, introducing hallucination failures distinct from general text generation: anachronistic technology injection, cross-domain terminology contamination, structural mutation, and content fabrication.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to resume optimization for applicant tracking systems, introducing hallucination failures distinct from general text generation: anachronistic technology injection, cross-domain terminology contamination, structural mutation, and content fabrication.
  • We present Grounded Optimization, a five-layer framework combining temporal context validation, deterministic contamination detection, structural invariant enforcement, prompt-level grounding, and an evaluator agent.
  • In ablation experiments across three LLMs, four temperature settings, and six layer configurations on 25 synthetic resumes spanning 14 industries, undefended baselines produce 2.48-5.36 detected hallucinations per resume.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We present Grounded Optimization, a five-layer framework combining temporal context validation, deterministic contamination detection, structural invariant enforcement, prompt-level grounding, and an evaluator agent.
  • Among detectors independent of the active defenses, temporal hallucinations are reduced by 50-95% across all conditions; overall detected hallucination rate falls to 0.04-0.24.
  • We release the contamination taxonomy, evaluation code, and raw data.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We present Grounded Optimization, a five-layer framework combining temporal context validation, deterministic contamination detection, structural invariant enforcement, prompt-level grounding, and an evaluator agent.
  • We release the contamination taxonomy, evaluation code, and raw data.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: hallucination rate

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.