Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

PEFT of SLM for Telecommunications Customer Support: A Comparative Study of LoRA Configurations with Energy Consumption Analysis

Summary

A systematic study of parameter-efficient fine-tuning using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) applied to Qwen2.5-3B for building a domain-specific conversational assistant in telecommunications customer support. The research introduces a combinatorial synthetic data generation approach and evaluates 16 LoRA configurations, revealing a divergence between quantitative validation loss and qualitative human-aligned rankings, and provides an energy-performance trade-off analysis.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Lucas Tamic, Ilan Jaffeux-Cheniout, Xavier Marjou
PEFT of SLM for Telecommunications Customer Support: A Comparative Study of LoRA Configurations with Energy Consumption Analysis
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[2606.05176] PEFT of SLM for Telecommunications Customer Support: A Comparative Study of LoRA Configurations with Energy Consumption Analysis

[Submitted on 17 Apr 2026]

Title:PEFT of SLM for Telecommunications Customer Support: A Comparative Study of LoRA Configurations with Energy Consumption Analysis

View a PDF of the paper titled PEFT of SLM for Telecommunications Customer Support: A Comparative Study of LoRA Configurations with Energy Consumption Analysis, by Lucas Tamic and 2 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:While large language models (LLMs) show strong performance in natural language understanding and generation, their evaluation and adaptation to domain-specific constraints in telecommunications customer support remain limited. In addition, data sovereignty, regulatory constraints, and the handling of sensitive customer and network information complicate the use of externally hosted foundation models in this domain.

We present a systematic study of parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) applied to Qwen2.5-3B to build a domain-specific conversational assistant. We introduce a combinatorial synthetic data generation approach based on a glossary of 52 industry-specific terms, producing approximately 30,000 training examples across 1,560 distinct problem scenarios via a generative pipeline powered by Gemini 2.0 Flash.

We evaluate 16 LoRA configurations by varying hyperparameters and target modules. Our evaluation extends beyond standard metrics by incorporating energy consumption analysis and qualitative assessment using an LLM-as-a-judge framework with GPT-5.2 and Claude 4.5 Sonnet.

Results show a clear divergence between quantitative and qualitative performance: models achieving the lowest validation loss do not necessarily obtain the best human-aligned rankings. The best validation loss (0.5024) ranks only 6th-7th in qualitative evaluation, while the worst loss (0.6807) ranks first according to both judges.

This work contributes (1) a combinatorial method for synthetic dataset construction, (2) insights into the impact of target module selection for LoRA injection, (3) evidence that validation loss alone is insufficient for selecting fine-tuning configurations in conversational AI, and (4) an energy-performance trade-off analysis for sustainable LLM deployment.

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2606.05176 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2606.05176v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.05176

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Lucas Tamic [view email] [v1] Fri, 17 Apr 2026 09:56:18 UTC (171 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled PEFT of SLM for Telecommunications Customer Support: A Comparative Study of LoRA Configurations with Energy Consumption Analysis, by Lucas Tamic and 2 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-06

Change to browse by:

cs cs.AI

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • Combinatorial synthetic data generation using 52 industry terms produced 30,000 training examples across 1,560 scenarios.
  • Evaluation of 16 LoRA configurations showed that lowest validation loss (0.5024) ranked only 6th-7th in qualitative assessment, while highest loss (0.6807) ranked first.
  • The study highlights the insufficiency of validation loss alone for selecting fine-tuning configurations in conversational AI and emphasizes energy consumption as a key metric.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.

PEFT of SLM for Telecommunications Customer Support: A Comparative Study of LoRA Configurations with Energy Consumption Analysis | AI News Hub