Index |  Research ▾  |  Verification ▾  | About
SRCH:7EFBFAAB

Comparative Performance of RLHF, DPO, and SFT in Mitigating Hallucinations in LoRA-Fine-Tuned 7B and 70B Models

Submitted: 12 June 2026
Review score: 8.40/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Gate status: Unverified
Quality tier: DOI grade
Verified claims: 13
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20665943

Abstract

Abstract: This research investigates the effectiveness of alignment techniques, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and a combined SFT+DPO approach on improving the safety and helpfulness of the OPT-350M language model. Utilizing the Anthropic Helpful-Harmless RLHF dataset, we train and evaluate four models: the base OPT350M, an SFT model, a DPO model, and a model trained with both SFT and DPO. We introduce three key evaluation metrics: Harmlessness Rate (HmR), Helpfulness Rate (HpR), and a Combined Alignment Score (CAS), all derived from reward model outputs. The results

Research Question

What is the comparative performance of RLHF, DPO, and SFT alignment techniques in mitigating hallucinations in 7B and 70B models fine-tuned with LoRA, as measured by factual consistency scores in domain-specific Q&A tasks?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims13
Claim record sourceparsed source sections

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

StatusUnverified
GateGate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction)
ReasonPublished before the Gate 2 verification pipeline was activated (2026-06-10). No formal proof or sandbox reproduction has been attempted for this record.

This record has not completed Gate 2 of the verification pipeline (a type-checked Lean4 proof for mathematical claims, or a sealed-sandbox reproduction for empirical claims). It is a literature synthesis only. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

Quality Tier

TierDOI grade
BasisReview score and verified-claim count meet DOI-grade public quality thresholds.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage13 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.