EMNLP Findings2025
The Hallucination Tax of Reinforcement Finetuning
Linxin Song, Taiwei Shi, Jieyu Zhao
Abstract
Reinforcement finetuning (RFT) has become a standard approach for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, its impact on model trustworthiness remains underexplored. In this work, we identify and systematically study a critical side effect of RFT, which we term the hallucination tax: a degradation in refusal behavior causing models to produce hallucinated answers to unanswerable questions confidently. To investigate this, we introduce SUM (Synthetic Unanswerable Math), a high-quality dataset of unanswerable math problems designed to probe models' ability to recognize an unanswerable question by reasoning from the insufficient or ambiguous information. Our results show that standard RFT training could reduce model refusal rates by more than 80%, which significantly increases model's tendency to hallucinate. We further demonstrate that incorporating just 10% SUM during RFT substantially restores appropriate refusal behavior, with minimal accuracy trade-offs on solvable tasks. Crucially, this approach enables LLMs to leverage inference-time compute to reason about their own uncertainty and knowledge boundaries, improving generalization not only to outof-domain math problems but also to factual question answering tasks.
Ask Lune
Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.
Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.
Lune answers from
the full paper · 13 top-tier papers that cite it · related work
Free to start. No credit card required.
Cited by top-tier papers13
- Beyond Binary Rewards: Training LMs to Reason About Their UncertaintyMehul Damani, Isha Puri, Stewart Slocum, Idan Shenfeld et al.ICLR 2026 · 116 citations
- WildFeedback: Aligning LLMs With In-situ User Interactions And FeedbackTaiwei Shi, Zhuoer Wang, Longqi Yang, Ying-Chun Lin et al.ACL 2026 · 35 citations
- Thinking in Uncertainty: Mitigating Hallucinations in MLRMs with Latent Entropy-Aware DecodingZhongxing Xu, Zhonghua Wang, Zhe Qian, Dachuan Shi et al.CVPR 2026 · 16 citations
- KnowRL: Exploring Knowledgeable Reinforcement Learning for FactualityBaochang Ren, Shuofei Qiao, Ningyu Zhang, Da Zheng et al.ACL 2026 · 12 citations
- On Robustness and Chain-of-Thought Consistency of RL-Finetuned VLMsRosie Zhao, Anshul Shah, Xiaoyu Zhu, Xinke Deng et al.ICML 2026 · 10 citations
Builds on22
- TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human FalsehoodsStephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, Owain EvansACL 2022 · 3,228 citations
- Let's Verify Step by StepHunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards et al.ICLR 2024 · 3,045 citations
- DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at ScaleQiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 2,828 citations
- Open-Reasoner-Zero: An Open Source Approach to Scaling Up Reinforcement Learning on the Base ModelJingcheng Hu, Yinmin Zhang, Qi Han, Daxin Jiang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 533 citations
- How Language Model Hallucinations Can SnowballMuru Zhang, Ofir Press, William Merrill, Alisa Liu et al.ICML 2024 · 406 citations
Related papers
- Do Retrieval Augmented Language Models Know When They Don't Know?Youchao Zhou, Heyan Huang, Yicheng Liu, Rui Dai et al.AAAI 2026
- Learning from Synthetic Data Improves Multi-hop ReasoningAnmol Kabra, Yilun Yin, Albert Gong, Kamilė Stankevičiūtė et al.ICLR 2026 · 6 citations
- Thinking Out Loud: Do Reasoning Models Know When They're Right?Qingcheng Zeng, Weihao Xuan, Leyang Cui, Rob VoigtEMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
- The Reasoning Trap: How Enhancing LLM Reasoning Amplifies Tool HallucinationChenlong Yin, Zeyang Sha, Shiwen Cui, Changhua Meng et al.ACL 2026 · 7 citations
- TruthRL: Incentivizing Truthful LLMs via Reinforcement LearningZhepei Wei, Xiao Yang, Kai Sun, Jiaqi Wang et al.ICML 2026
