Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Hallucination-Aware Multimodal Models
Keywords:
parameter-efficient fine-tuning; multimodal models; hallucination; vision-language systems; model governance; robustness; sustainability; responsible artificial intelligenceAbstract
Multimodal models increasingly combine visual, textual, auditory, and structured data to support decision-making in domains such as healthcare, mobility, industrial inspection, education, and public administration. Their capacity to generate fluent cross-modal descriptions and recommendations, however, is accompanied by hallucination risks that can undermine trust, safety, and regulatory compliance. This paper examines parameter-efficient fine-tuning as a system-level strategy for hallucination-aware multimodal models. Rather than treating adaptation as a narrow optimization problem, the analysis frames it as an architectural, infrastructural, and governance concern. It reviews adapter-based, low-rank, prompt-based, and quantization-aware approaches, then connects them to multimodal hallucination sources such as weak grounding, attention misallocation, dataset bias, and evaluation gaps. The discussion emphasizes structural trade-offs involving memory, latency, modularity, observability, fairness, sustainability, and policy alignment. It argues that parameter-efficient fine-tuning can reduce computational barriers and enable domain-specific correction, but it can also concentrate risk when hallucination-aware objectives are absent from training data, evaluation pipelines, and deployment controls. The paper concludes that robust multimodal systems require layered governance, continuous auditing, modality-aware benchmarks, and infrastructure that makes adaptation reversible, traceable, and accountable. Such an approach positions parameter-efficient fine-tuning not as a shortcut for model customization, but as a component of socio-technical assurance for generative multimodal infrastructures.
References
1. Houlsby, N., Giurgiu, A., Jastrzebski, S., Morrone, B., De Laroussilhe, Q., Gesmundo, A., Attariyan, M., & Gelly, S. (2019). Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 97, pp. 2790–2799). PMLR.
2. Hu, E. J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., & Chen, W. (2022). LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.
3. Li, X. L., & Liang, P. (2021). Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 4582–4597). Association for Computational Linguistics.
4. Lester, B., Al-Rfou, R., & Constant, N. (2021). The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 3045–3059). Association for Computational Linguistics.
5. Liu, H., Tam, D., Muqeeth, M., Mohta, J., Huang, T., Bansal, M., & Raffel, C. (2022). Few-shot parameter-efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 35, pp. 1950–1965). Curran Associates.
6. Dettmers, T., Pagnoni, A., Holtzman, A., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2023). QLoRA: Efficient finetuning of quantized LLMs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 36, pp. 10088–10115). Curran Associates.
7. Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., Krueger, G., & Sutskever, I. (2021). Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 139, pp. 8748–8763). PMLR.
8. Li, J., Li, D., Savarese, S., & Hoi, S. (2023). BLIP-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 202, pp. 19730–19742). PMLR.
9. Zhu, D., Chen, J., Shen, X., Li, X., & Elhoseiny, M. (2023). MiniGPT-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10592
10. Chen, Y., Li, J., Yao, W., Ma, X., Du, G., Wang, W., & Li, J. (2026, July). Vocabulary hijacking in lvlms: Unveiling critical attention heads by excluding inert tokens to mitigate hallucination. In Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 38458-38485).
11. Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023). Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12), Article 248, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730
12. Maynez, J., Narayan, S., Bohnet, B., & McDonald, R. (2020). On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1906–1919). Association for Computational Linguistics.
13. Rohrbach, A., Hendricks, L. A., Burns, K., Darrell, T., & Saenko, K. (2018). Object hallucination in image captioning. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 4035–4045). Association for Computational Linguistics.
14. Zhou, Y., Lei, T., Liu, H., Du, N., Huang, Y., Zhao, V., Dai, A. M., Le, Q. V., Laudon, J., & Gao, J. (2021). Detecting hallucinated content in conditional neural sequence generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 (pp. 1393–1404). Association for Computational Linguistics.
15. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N. S., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., ... Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258
16. Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Huang, P. S., Mellor, J., Glaese, A., Cheng, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., Biles, C., Brown, S., Kenton, Z., Hawkins, W., Stepleton, T., He, L., Hendricks, L. A., Rimell, L., Isaac, W., ... Gabriel, I. (2022). Taxonomy of risks posed by language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 214–229). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533088
17. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
18. Sculley, D., Holt, G., Golovin, D., Davydov, E., Phillips, T., Ebner, D., Chaudhary, V., Young, M., Crespo, J.-F., & Dennison, D. (2015). Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 28, pp. 2503–2511). Curran Associates.
19. Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., & McCallum, A. (2019). Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 3645–3650). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1355
20. Schwartz, R., Dodge, J., Smith, N. A., & Etzioni, O. (2020). Green AI. Communications of the ACM, 63(12), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381831
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Systems

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.