SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2602.11166

Small Updates, Big Doubts: Does Parameter-Efficient Fine-tuning Enhance Hallucination Detection ?

Abstract

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods are widely used to adapt large language models (LLMs) to downstream tasks and are often assumed to improve factual correctness. However, how the parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods affect hallucination behavior remains insufficiently understood, especially on QA datasets. In this work, we systematically investigate the impact of PEFT on hallucination detection through a comprehensive empirical study across three open-weight LLM backbones and three fact-seeking QA benchmarks. For each model, we evaluate performance using seven unsupervised hallucination detection methods spanning three complementary approaches: semantic consistency based detectors, confidence based detectors, and entropy based detectors. This multifaceted evaluation enables us to characterize how PEFT reshapes uncertainty across different detection paradigms. In conclusion, our experimental results show that PEFT consistently strengthens hallucination detection ability, substantially improving AUROC across a wide range of hallucination detectors. Besides, further analyses using linear probes and representation diagnostics indicate that PEFT methods primarily reshapes how uncertainty is encoded and surfaced, comparing with injecting new factual knowledge into the models.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Xu Hu, Yifan Zhang, Songtao Wei, Chen Zhao, Qiannan Li, Bingzhe Li, Feng Chen. 2026-08-29. Small Updates, Big Doubts: Does Parameter-Efficient Fine-tuning Enhance Hallucination Detection ?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11166

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

cs.CL