Neural Diversity Regularizes Hallucinations in Language Models
Kushal Chakrabarti, Nirmal Balachundhar

TL;DR
This paper introduces neural diversity as a mechanism to reduce hallucinations in language models, using decorrelated representations and a novel regularization method, leading to significant improvements in reliability without sacrificing accuracy.
Contribution
It presents the first formal analysis of hallucination probability in ensemble language models and proposes ND-LoRA, a new regularization technique that enhances model reliability through neural diversity.
Findings
Neural diversity reduces hallucination rates by up to 25.6%.
Formal tail bounds explain 94.3% of reliability variation.
Optimal neurodiversity levels vary across different tasks.
Abstract
Language models continue to hallucinate despite increases in parameters, compute, and data. We propose neural diversity -- decorrelated parallel representations -- as a principled mechanism that reduces hallucination rates at fixed parameter and data budgets. While existing mitigation strategies largely target accuracy, we provide the first formal tail bounds for hallucination probability in ensembled language models, reframing it as a second-moment reliability problem and explaining 94.3% of empirical reliability variation seen across parallel configurations. We introduce ND-LoRA (Neural Diversity Low-Rank Adaptation), combining parallel LoRA adapters with Barlow Twins regularization, and reduce hallucinations by up to 25.6% (and 14.6% on average) while preserving general accuracy. Ablations show LoRA adapters and regularization act synergistically, causal interventions prove…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
- Theoretical contributions reflect well in the experimental results (specifically, the relationship between reliability and neural diversity and the existence of an optimal neural diversity level in an U-shaped curve). - Careful evaluation, accounting for parameter matching and statistical significance thresholds and confidence intervals, showing significant hallucination mitigation results at a minimal induced computation overhead. - While the method specifically targets mitigating halluci
- Experiments show high variability in optimal number of streams across tasks, implying repeated training or nontrivial hyperparameter search to find the sweet spot. - Limited scale, with a small-scale backbone of 0.5B, 20M data tokens and context length of only 1k tokens (as far as I understand, many real-world hallucinations surface in longer chats where retrieval of the right snippet is harder, so external validity to long-context use remains uncertain). - Concern about LoRA rank as a con
1. The inclusion of 'ND-LoRA' by the paper to increase diversity clearly reduces hallucinations, without a significant increase in computation cost. In other words, the biggest strength of the paper is that the technique proposed works. While additional experiments are always appreciated, I believe the current set of experiments are robust enough to suggest that the technique can be expected to work in other settings. 2. Ablation studies and experiments across multiple datasets show robust bene
Comment on Related Work: The paper needs a better treatment of related work. Many weaknesses discussed below will refer back to this particular lack of appropriate discussion of related works in the paper. There is a section on Related Works towards the end of the paper, but it does not do justice to the rest of the discussion in the paper. 1. I fail to separate the novelty of the theoretical analysis provided in the paper from those that already exist in the ensemble literature. From the gener
- The paper investigates a relevant research question: how to reduce the rate of hallucinations of a small language model. - The paper presents a broad set of experiments on several evaluation benchmarks.
The clarity and rigor of the paper could be greatly improved. - The manuscript is often not self-contained and some of the terminology is not defined before being mentioned. For instance, the abstract mentions “neural diversity”, without describing what it refers to, Figure 1 shows metrics that are not well-defined at this point, line 52 makes a statement about “parallel streams” without properly introducing what they are etc. - Several claims in the paper are not sufficiently precise. For inst
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning · Ferroelectric and Negative Capacitance Devices · Topic Modeling
