mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2602.11166 ↗First posted 17 Jan 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jan 2026.

Builds on

20 of 28 references.

References · 20

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  2. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  3. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  4. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
  5. 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,895
  6. 2016A Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-of-Distribution Examples in Neural Networkscited by 2,362
  7. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
  8. 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 983
  9. 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 787
  10. 2024DoRA: Weight-Decomposed Low-Rank Adaptationcited by 740
  11. 2023Generating with Confidence: Uncertainty Quantification for Black-box Large Language Modelscited by 286
  12. 2024Semantic Entropy Probes: Robust and Cheap Hallucination Detection in LLMscited by 246
8 more
  1. 2024Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?cited by 227
  2. 2023Fine-tuning Language Models for Factualitycited by 219
  3. 2025Why Language Models Hallucinatecited by 205
  4. 2023LM-Polygraph: Uncertainty Estimation for Language Modelscited by 130
  5. 2024HaloScope: Harnessing Unlabeled LLM Generations for Hallucination Detectioncited by 96
  6. 2024TruthX: Alleviating Hallucinations by Editing Large Language Models in Truthful Spacecited by 90
  7. 2024Factuality of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 64
  8. 2025Are Reasoning Models More Prone to Hallucination?cited by 62

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.