Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 67 references

Hallucination Detection and Mitigation with Diffusion in Multi-Variate Time-Series Foundation Models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that pre-trained multi-variate time-series imputation foundation models relationally hallucinate on average up to 59.5% as much as a weak baseline, and that a diffusion-based Combined Error score detects those…

desk verdict Useful definitions and a benchmark family for relational hallucination in MVTS imputation, but the CE metric's claimed specificity to relation violation over OOD-ness is not established and needs stronger evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00881 v1 pith:XJ5REIXJ submitted 2025-07-23 cs.LG cs.CL

Vijja Wichitwechkarn , Charles Fox , Ruchi Choudhary This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.CL
keywords hallucinationdetectionmulti-variatetime-seriesfoundationmodelsimputationdiffusionrelationalconfidenceestimationquestionanswering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to bring hallucination detection from NLP to multi-variate time-series (MVTS) foundation models, arguing that imputation models can be treated as general question-answering systems whose answers need confidence scores. It defines distributional hallucination as an out-of-distribution prompt-response pair and relational hallucination as a prompt-response pair that breaks a ground-truth relation $f(x)=0$, then focuses on the latter. It proposes a Combined Error (CE) metric computed by one-step diffusion reconstruction, and shows on five derived benchmark datasets with known relations that open-source pre-trained MVTS imputation foundation models relationally hallucinate on average up to 59.5% as much as a weak baseline. If the paper is right, practitioners gain a dataset-specific way to detect when an imputed answer is likely to violate relations among variables and to filter sampled answers to reduce such violations by up to 47.7%.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Combined Error metric, $M_{CE}=\mathrm{RMSE}_i(\hat{\hat{x}}_i, \hat{x}_i)$, computed by taking a completed prompt-response window and asking a RePaint-conditioned DDPM to denoise it one step: all values are corrupted to the final noise level, reconstructed, and the RMSE between reconstruction and original is averaged over variables. A dataset-specific scale is obtained by computing CE on the training set and thresholding at its quartiles, giving low, medium, and high expected hallucination classes. The five relational benchmark datasets carry the evaluation: each adds a third variable as a fixed function of two real variables (difference, nonlinear vapour-pressure deficit, sum, difference, and product), so the ground-truth relational error $E_r=|f(x)|$ can be computed and the CE estimate can be checked against it.

What would settle it

Take the rWTH relational dataset and compute both CE and the known relational error $E_r=|f(x)|$ for every prompt-response pair on the held-out test set across the over-constrained, under-constrained, and forecast tasks; if the rank correlation between CE and $E_r$ is not clearly positive on each task, the detection and filtering claims would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that relational hallucination in MVTS imputation is measurable without knowing the ground-truth relation. The authors define relational error as $E_r=|f(x)|$ for a known relation $f(x)=0$, call a response relationally hallucinating when this error is high, and demonstrate that a diffusion model trained on a target dataset can estimate this error through a Combined Error (CE) metric: the RMSE between a prompt-response pair and its one-step reconstruction by a RePaint-conditioned DDPM. On five derived relational datasets built from electricity, weather, traffic, illness, and transformer-temperature data, two open-source pre-trained imputation foundation models produced relational errors on average up to 59.5% of the weak-baseline error. Quartile thresholding on CE separates low- and high-hallucination groups with near-zero overlap on four of the five datasets, and selecting the sampled response with the lowest CE reduces relational error by up to 47.7% for the pre-trained foundation models. The paper frames relational hallucination as a subset of distributional hallucination that remains detectable in out-of-distribution regimes, which matters for optimization and what-if questions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Combined Error score — the RMSE between a prompt-response pair and its one-step diffusion reconstruction — actually tracks the unknown ground-truth relational error $|f(x)|$; the paper's own limitations note that this link is intuition-driven and empirical rather than derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MVTS imputation models can be used more safely when responses are filtered by CE: the paper reports up to 47.7% average reduction in relational error for pre-trained foundation models and 55.0% for the diffusion model itself.
  • Quartile-based CE thresholds separate low- and high-hallucination classes with near-zero overlap on four of five evaluated datasets, so CE can serve as a practical dataset-specific confidence score at inference.
  • Because CE only needs a diffusion model trained on the target domain plus one denoising step, it can be attached to any imputation model, including deterministic models made stochastic by activating dropout.
  • Relational hallucination is less restricted than distributional hallucination: an out-of-distribution prompt can still yield a relationally correct response, which is exactly the regime where optimization and scenario-simulation questions live.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that CE is a candidate calibration signal: if it tracks relational error, MVTS question-answering systems could report per-answer 'relationally confident' versus 'relationally doubtful' labels rather than only filtering a batch of samples.
  • The one-step reconstruction cost makes CE cheap enough for online use, so a natural extension would be to train a small regression head on prompt-response pairs to predict CE directly and avoid running a diffusion pass at deployment.
  • The definitions suggest a two-axis failure taxonomy for MVTS — a response can be in-distribution but relationally broken, or out-of-distribution but relationally valid — and a detector combining an OOD score with CE could separate these cases rather than collapsing hallucination into one number.
  • A testable extension is to check whether the CE-to-Er mapping is monotone enough to choose risk-based thresholds instead of quartiles; the paper's toy heatmap hints at this, but the benchmark results only establish separation, not monotonicity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes definitions of distributional and relational hallucination for multivariate time-series (MVTS) imputation models, and introduces a diffusion-based Combined Error (CE) metric intended to estimate relational hallucination. The CE metric is computed as the RMSE between a prompt-response pair and a one-step reconstruction of that pair by a RePaint-conditioned diffusion model. The authors introduce five synthetic relational datasets derived from standard MVTS benchmarks, report that pre-trained MVTS foundation models (MOMENT and TIMER) have relational error up to 59.5% of a weak baseline, and report that selecting the lowest-CE sample among N model responses reduces relational error by up to 47.7%.

Significance. If the central identification of CE with relational error holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: it provides operational definitions for a previously undefined phenomenon, a computationally cheap detector based on a single diffusion denoising step, and a simple mitigation strategy. The empirical protocol is a strength: results are reported as means and standard deviations over multiple runs on five datasets, the detector is evaluated against ground-truth relational error, and Appendix A compares several alternative metrics. The main unresolved scientific question is whether CE measures relational violation specifically or merely out-of-distribution status; the paper's own Limitations section concedes that the approach is 'largely intuition-driven and empirical.'

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (9); §4; §5] The identification of CE with relational error is confounded with out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. In all five benchmark datasets (rECL, rWTH, rTraffic, rIllness, rETT), the third variable is a deterministic function of the first two, so the training distribution lies on the manifold f(x)=0 by construction and every relation-violating prompt-response pair is out-of-distribution. The only evidence that CE stays low for OOD but relation-satisfying inputs is the qualitative 2D heatmap in Fig. 1 (right); no quantitative check on the five relational datasets is reported. Since the stated motivation (farm-optimization example, §1) is to trust OOD responses that still satisfy the relation, the detection and mitigation results in Tables 2, and the headline 59.5%/47.7% claims, could be driven by generic OOD detection rather than by relational hallucination. Please add a quantitative separation of the two axes, e.g., generate OOD test points that satisfy f and report CE versus Er in that subset, or introduce nondeterministic relations that admit in-distribution violations.
  2. [§3, Eq. (9)] The one-step CE computation is underspecified. The text says a single denoising step 'the final time-step going t=0' is used, but Eq. (4) defines µ_θ(x_t,t) as the predicted mean of x_{t-1}, not of x_0. It is unclear whether the reconstructed value is µ_θ(x_T,T), the x_0 estimate (x_T - sqrt(1-arα_T) ε_θ(x_T,T))/sqrt(arα_T), or another quantity, and whether the result is averaged over random draws of x_T. Since MCE is the core of both detection and mitigation, please state the exact estimator and the number of noise realizations used; otherwise Tables 2 and the mitigation numbers are not reproducible.
  3. [§4.3, Table 2] The mitigation evaluation baseline is inconsistent. The definition says ∆Er = E_r^{(j*)} / ⟨E_r⟩, i.e., relative to the mean of the N sampled responses, but the next sentence says it 'should be relative to the response from the model with deactivated dropout.' Please clarify which baseline produced the numbers in Table 2. If the ensemble-mean baseline was used, the reported reduction confounds the benefit of selecting the lowest-CE sample with the benefit of averaging over samples, and the 47.7% claim needs to be re-evaluated against the intended single-response baseline.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2] The text says 'relational hallucination is a subset of distributional hallucination' and later says relational hallucination is 'less restricted' than distributional hallucination; clarify whether the subset relation applies to the set of hallucinating pairs or to the set of relation-satisfying pairs.
  2. [§4] The relational error Er is never explicitly aggregated over the 24 time steps; specify whether Er for a data point is the mean over time of |f(x(τ))| or some other aggregation.
  3. [§4.2] The overlap coefficient depends on histogram binning; state the number of bins used and whether the histogram is computed per task or pooled across tasks.
  4. [Table 2, §4.3] The text reports reductions 'up to 55.0%' and 'up to 47.7%' but does not state which dataset and task yield these maxima; add this information so the claims can be located in the table.
  5. [Fig. 1] The CE heatmap in Fig. 1 (right) lacks axis labels and a color bar, which makes the claimed low CE in OOD regions not quantitatively inspectable.
  6. [§5] There is a typo in 'non-determinstic'; please fix to 'non-deterministic'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: the CE metric is an independent empirical estimator validated against the separately defined ground-truth relational error.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: define relational hallucination via a ground-truth relation f(x)=0 and relational error Er=|f(x)| (Section 2); propose the Combined Error metric CE = RMSE between a prompt-response pair and its one-step diffusion reconstruction (Eq. 9, Section 3); then empirically check whether CE tracks Er on five constructed datasets with known f (Section 4, Fig. 8, Table 2). Er is defined directly from the constructed datasets, not from CE, and CE is defined from the diffusion reconstruction, not from Er. Detection quartiles are calibrated on training-set CE values and evaluated by the overlap of Er distributions for low/high classes; this is standard supervised calibration, not fitting Er into CE. Mitigation selects the sampled response with lowest CE and is evaluated by the relative change in Er, an independent quantity. No load-bearing self-citation appears: the only hallucination-metric reference [59] is external, and the paper's own formulations are self-contained. The acknowledged limitation that the method is 'largely intuition-driven and empirical' (Section 5) is a correctness and robustness concern, and the possible confound that CE may partly measure OOD-ness rather than relational violation is an empirical validity question, not a circular reduction by construction. Accordingly, no step in the derivation reduces a prediction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The evaluation rests on synthetic datasets with an exact known relation f, and on the unproven premise that a diffusion model's one-step reconstruction error tracks violations of f. The detector's quartile thresholds and the unspecified sample count N act as free parameters. No physical entities are introduced; the relational hallucination definition and CE metric are new conceptual and measurement constructs validated only within the paper's own benchmarks.

free parameters (2)
  • CE quartile thresholds = second and third quartiles of training-set CE, values not reported
    The detection classifier thresholds are fitted to the training CE distribution; the paper does not report the actual threshold values.
  • Number of mitigation samples N = not reported
    The mitigation method samples N responses per prompt but N is never given; the paper only says results are averaged over 20 runs.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The benchmark datasets have an exact, known ground-truth relation f(x)=0 that holds for every training point.
    The evaluation of relational hallucination requires known exact relations; in real-world MVTS, relations are typically unknown and stochastic. Section 4 constructs the third variable as a deterministic function of the first two.
  • ad hoc to paper A diffusion model trained on a dataset can reproduce valid prompt-response pairs, so that the one-step reconstruction error (CE) is a valid proxy for violation of the unknown relation f.
    The paper states the CE metric is 'intuition-driven and empirical' (Section 5 Limitations); no formal statement connects CE to relational error.
  • standard math DDPM and RePaint formulations as given in Section 1.1 are correct and applicable to multivariate time-series windows.
    The paper builds on Ho et al. [18] and Lugmayr et al. [32] without modification.
invented entities (2)
  • Relational hallucination definition (with relational error Er = |f(x)|)
    purpose: Defines a failure mode for MVTS imputation where the prompt-response pair violates an assumed relation between variables.
    The concept is defined by the authors; no externally validated operationalization exists outside the synthetic datasets introduced here.
  • Combined Error (CE) metric MCE = RMSE_i(^^x_i, ^x_i)
    purpose: Estimates relational hallucination level via one-step diffusion reconstruction.
    The metric is introduced by the paper and validated only on its own synthetic benchmarks; it has no external reference standard.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hallucination Detection and Mitigation with Diffusion in Multi-Variate Time-Series Foundation Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XJ5REIXJ

@misc{pith2026250800881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hallucination Detection and Mitigation with Diffusion in Multi-Variate Time-Series Foundation Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XJ5REIXJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00881}
}
read the original abstract

Foundation models for natural language processing have many coherent definitions of hallucination and methods for its detection and mitigation. However, analogous definitions and methods do not exist for multi-variate time-series (MVTS) foundation models. We propose new definitions for MVTS hallucination, along with new detection and mitigation methods using a diffusion model to estimate hallucination levels. We derive relational datasets from popular time-series datasets to benchmark these relational hallucination levels. Using these definitions and models, we find that open-source pre-trained MVTS imputation foundation models relationally hallucinate on average up to 59.5% as much as a weak baseline. The proposed mitigation method reduces this by up to 47.7% for these models. The definition and methods may improve adoption and safe usage of MVTS foundation models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00881 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left Top) Index decomposition of a data point. (Left Bottom) Example of additional context provided on the UC task. (Middle Left) Schematic showing the different type of tasks (OC, UC and FC) for the prompt. Masked variables are shown as blank green boxes and unmasked variables are used as the prompt. The imputation process can be done using the diffusion model or pre-trained foundation models. (Middle Right) The c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histogram showing the distribution of relational error for the data points with expected low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic showing the computation of the trajectory variance (TV) metric. The variance is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scatter plot showing the relationship between the RTS metric ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scatter plot showing the relationship between the PTS metric ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter plot showing the relationship between the CTS metric ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scatter plot showing the relationship between the PE metric ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scatter plot showing the relationship between the CE metric ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    GPT-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Recent advances in natural language processing via large pre-trained language models: A survey

    Bonan Min, Hayley Ross, Elior Sulem, Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Thien Huu Nguyen, Oscar Sainz, Eneko Agirre, Ilana Heintz, and Dan Roth. Recent advances in natural language processing via large pre-trained language models: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(2):1– 40, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models

    Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 1, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Chronos: Learning the language of time series

    Abdul Fatir Ansari, Lorenzo Stella, Caner Turkmen, Xiyuan Zhang, Pedro Mercado, Huibin Shen, Oleksandr Shchur, Syama Sundar Rangapuram, Sebastian Pineda Arango, Shubham Kapoor, et al. Chronos: Learning the language of time series. arXiv:2403.07815, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting

    Abhimanyu Das, Weihao Kong, Rajat Sen, and Yichen Zhou. A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting. arXiv:2310.10688, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Lag-llama: Towards foundation models for time series forecasting

    Kashif Rasul, Arjun Ashok, Andrew Robert Williams, Arian Khorasani, George Adamopoulos, Rishika Bhagwatkar, Marin Biloš, Hena Ghonia, Nadhir Vincent Hassen, Anderson Schneider, et al. Lag-llama: Towards foundation models for time series forecasting. arXiv:2310.08278, 2023

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    TimeGPT-1

    Azul Garza and Max Mergenthaler-Canseco. TimeGPT-1. arXiv:2310.03589, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Unified training of universal time series forecasting transformers, 2024

    Gerald Woo, Chenghao Liu, Akshat Kumar, Caiming Xiong, Silvio Savarese, and Doyen Sahoo. Unified training of universal time series forecasting transformers, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Moment: A family of open time-series foundation models

    Mononito Goswami, Konrad Szafer, Arjun Choudhry, Yifu Cai, Shuo Li, and Artur Dubrawski. Moment: A family of open time-series foundation models. arXiv:2402.03885, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Timer: Generative pre-trained transformers are large time series models

    Yong Liu, Haoran Zhang, Chenyu Li, Xiangdong Huang, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Timer: Generative pre-trained transformers are large time series models. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Totem: Tokenized time series embeddings for general time series analysis

    Sabera Talukder, Yisong Yue, and Georgia Gkioxari. Totem: Tokenized time series embeddings for general time series analysis. arXiv:2402.16412, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Timesnet: Temporal 2D-variation modeling for general time series analysis

    Haixu Wu, Tengge Hu, Yong Liu, Hang Zhou, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Timesnet: Temporal 2D-variation modeling for general time series analysis. arXiv:2210.02186, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    One fits all: Power general time series analysis by pretrained LM

    Tian Zhou, Peisong Niu, Liang Sun, Rong Jin, et al. One fits all: Power general time series analysis by pretrained LM. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    A survey of hallucination in large foundation models

    Vipula Rawte, Amit Sheth, and Amitava Das. A survey of hallucination in large foundation models. arXiv:2309.05922, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Siren’s song in the AI ocean: a survey on hallucination in large language models

    Yue Zhang, Yafu Li, Leyang Cui, Deng Cai, Lemao Liu, Tingchen Fu, Xinting Huang, Enbo Zhao, Yu Zhang, Yulong Chen, et al. Siren’s song in the AI ocean: a survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv:2309.01219, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Cognitive mirage: A review of hallucinations in large language models

    Hongbin Ye, Tong Liu, Aijia Zhang, Wei Hua, and Weiqiang Jia. Cognitive mirage: A review of hallucinations in large language models. arXiv:2309.06794, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 10

    2020

  11. [19]

    Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications

    Ling Yang, Zhilong Zhang, Yang Song, Shenda Hong, Runsheng Xu, Yue Zhao, Wentao Zhang, Bin Cui, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(4):1–39, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proc. IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Diffusion-TS: Interpretable diffusion for general time series generation

    Xinyu Yuan and Yan Qiao. Diffusion-TS: Interpretable diffusion for general time series generation. arXiv:2403.01742, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    The rise of diffusion models in time-series forecasting

    Caspar Meijer and Lydia Y Chen. The rise of diffusion models in time-series forecasting. arXiv:2401.03006, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Deep learning for multivariate time series imputation: A survey

    Jun Wang, Wenjie Du, Wei Cao, Keli Zhang, Wenjia Wang, Yuxuan Liang, and Qingsong Wen. Deep learning for multivariate time series imputation: A survey. arXiv:2402.04059, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A survey on diffusion models for time series and spatio-temporal data

    Yiyuan Yang, Ming Jin, Haomin Wen, Chaoli Zhang, Yuxuan Liang, Lintao Ma, Yi Wang, Chenghao Liu, Bin Yang, Zenglin Xu, et al. A survey on diffusion models for time series and spatio-temporal data. arXiv:2404.18886, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Csdi: Conditional score-based diffusion models for probabilistic time series imputation

    Yusuke Tashiro, Jiaming Song, Yang Song, and Stefano Ermon. Csdi: Conditional score-based diffusion models for probabilistic time series imputation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Imputation-based time- series anomaly detection with conditional weight-incremental diffusion models

    Chunjing Xiao, Zehua Gou, Wenxin Tai, Kunpeng Zhang, and Fan Zhou. Imputation-based time- series anomaly detection with conditional weight-incremental diffusion models. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 2742–2751, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Imdiffusion: Imputed diffusion models for multivariate time series anomaly detection

    Yuhang Chen, Chaoyun Zhang, Minghua Ma, Yudong Liu, Ruomeng Ding, Bowen Li, Shilin He, Saravan Rajmohan, Qingwei Lin, and Dongmei Zhang. Imdiffusion: Imputed diffusion models for multivariate time series anomaly detection. arXiv:2307.00754, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pristi: A conditional diffusion framework for spatiotemporal imputation

    Mingzhe Liu, Han Huang, Hao Feng, Leilei Sun, Bowen Du, and Yanjie Fu. Pristi: A conditional diffusion framework for spatiotemporal imputation. In2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Diffusion-based time series imputation and forecasting with structured state space models

    Juan Miguel Lopez Alcaraz and Nils Strodthoff. Diffusion-based time series imputation and forecasting with structured state space models. arXiv:2208.09399, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    An observed value consistent diffusion model for imputing missing values in multivariate time series

    Xu Wang, Hongbo Zhang, Pengkun Wang, Yudong Zhang, Binwu Wang, Zhengyang Zhou, and Yang Wang. An observed value consistent diffusion model for imputing missing values in multivariate time series. In Proc. 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Mtsci: A condi- tional diffusion model for multivariate time series consistent imputation

    Jianping Zhou, Junhao Li, Guanjie Zheng, Xinbing Wang, and Chenghu Zhou. Mtsci: A condi- tional diffusion model for multivariate time series consistent imputation. arXiv:2408.05740, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Andreas Lugmayr, Martin Danelljan, Andres Romero, Fisher Yu, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11461–11471, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback

    Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, et al. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv:2302.12813, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Retrieval augmenta- tion reduces hallucination in conversation

    Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. Retrieval augmenta- tion reduces hallucination in conversation. arXiv:2104.07567, 2021. 11

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems...

    2020

  28. [36]

    Purr: Ef- ficiently editing language model hallucinations by denoising language model corruptions

    Anthony Chen, Panupong Pasupat, Sameer Singh, Hongrae Lee, and Kelvin Guu. Purr: Ef- ficiently editing language model hallucinations by denoising language model corruptions. arXiv:2305.14908, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of llms by validating low-confidence generation

    Neeraj Varshney, Wenlin Yao, Hongming Zhang, Jianshu Chen, and Dong Yu. A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of llms by validating low-confidence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03987, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Self-contradictory hallucina- tions of large language models

    Niels Mündler, Jingxuan He, Slobodan Jenko, and Martin Vechev. Self-contradictory hallucina- tions of large language models. arXiv:2305.15852, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models

    Potsawee Manakul, Adian Liusie, and Mark JF Gales. Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models. arXiv:2303.08896, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Halo: Estimation and reduction of hallucinations in open-source weak large language models

    Mohamed Elaraby, Mengyin Lu, Jacob Dunn, Xueying Zhang, Yu Wang, and Shizhu Liu. Halo: Estimation and reduction of hallucinations in open-source weak large language models. arXiv:2308.11764, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sac3: Reliable hallucination detection in black-box language models via semantic-aware cross-check consistency

    Jiaxin Zhang, Zhuohang Li, Kamalika Das, Bradley A Malin, and Sricharan Kumar. Sac3: Reliable hallucination detection in black-box language models via semantic-aware cross-check consistency. arXiv:2311.01740, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy

    Sebastian Farquhar, Jannik Kossen, Lorenz Kuhn, and Yarin Gal. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nature, 630(8017):625–630, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate

    Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. arXiv:2305.14325, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Hallucination detection: Robustly discerning reliable answers in large language models

    Yuyan Chen, Qiang Fu, Yichen Yuan, Zhihao Wen, Ge Fan, Dayiheng Liu, Dongmei Zhang, Zhixu Li, and Yanghua Xiao. Hallucination detection: Robustly discerning reliable answers in large language models. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Kn...

    2023

  37. [45]

    How to catch an ai liar: Lie detection in black-box llms by asking unrelated questions

    Lorenzo Pacchiardi, Alex J Chan, Sören Mindermann, Ilan Moscovitz, Alexa Y Pan, Yarin Gal, Owain Evans, and Jan Brauner. How to catch an ai liar: Lie detection in black-box llms by asking unrelated questions. arXiv:2309.15840, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Fine-grained hallucination detection and editing for language models

    Abhika Mishra, Akari Asai, Vidhisha Balachandran, Yizhong Wang, Graham Neubig, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Fine-grained hallucination detection and editing for language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06855, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Alignscore: Evaluating factual consis- tency with a unified alignment function

    Yuheng Zha, Yichi Yang, Ruichen Li, and Zhiting Hu. Alignscore: Evaluating factual consis- tency with a unified alignment function. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16739, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Unsupervised real-time hallucination detection based on the internal states of large language models

    Weihang Su, Changyue Wang, Qingyao Ai, Yiran Hu, Zhijing Wu, Yujia Zhou, and Yiqun Liu. Unsupervised real-time hallucination detection based on the internal states of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06448, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Anah-v2: Scaling analytical hallucination annotation of large language models

    Yuzhe Gu, Ziwei Ji, Wenwei Zhang, Chengqi Lyu, Dahua Lin, and Kai Chen. Anah-v2: Scaling analytical hallucination annotation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04693, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Mask-dpo: Generalizable fine-grained factuality alignment of llms

    Yuzhe Gu, Wenwei Zhang, Chengqi Lyu, Dahua Lin, and Kai Chen. Mask-dpo: Generalizable fine-grained factuality alignment of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02846, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Fine- tuning language models for factuality

    Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Huaxiu Yao, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. Fine- tuning language models for factuality. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 12

    2023

  44. [52]

    Flame: Factuality-aware alignment for large language models

    Sheng-Chieh Lin, Luyu Gao, Barlas Oguz, Wenhan Xiong, Jimmy Lin, Scott Yih, and Xilun Chen. Flame: Factuality-aware alignment for large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:115588–115614, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Self-alignment for factuality: Mitigating hallucinations in llms via self-evaluation

    Xiaoying Zhang, Baolin Peng, Ye Tian, Jingyan Zhou, Lifeng Jin, Linfeng Song, Haitao Mi, and Helen Meng. Self-alignment for factuality: Mitigating hallucinations in llms via self-evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09267, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Grath: Gradual self-truthifying for large language models

    Weixin Chen, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. Grath: Gradual self-truthifying for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12292, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    How language model hallucinations can snowball

    Muru Zhang, Ofir Press, William Merrill, Alisa Liu, and Noah A Smith. How language model hallucinations can snowball. arXiv:2305.13534, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Peer review of GPT-4 technical report and systems card

    Jack Gallifant, Amelia Fiske, Yulia A Levites Strekalova, Juan S Osorio-Valencia, Rachael Parke, Rogers Mwavu, Nicole Martinez, Judy Wawira Gichoya, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Dina Demner-Fushman, et al. Peer review of GPT-4 technical report and systems card. PLOS Digital Health, 3(1):...

    2024

  49. [57]

    Generalized out-of-distribution detection: A survey

    Jingkang Yang, Kaiyang Zhou, Yixuan Li, and Ziwei Liu. Generalized out-of-distribution detection: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision, 132(12):5635–5662, 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    Deep learning for time series anomaly detection: A survey

    Zahra Zamanzadeh Darban, Geoffrey I Webb, Shirui Pan, Charu Aggarwal, and Mahsa Salehi. Deep learning for time series anomaly detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 57(1):1– 42, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Understanding hallucinations in diffusion models through mode interpolation

    Sumukh K Aithal, Pratyush Maini, Zachary C Lipton, and J Zico Kolter. Understanding hallucinations in diffusion models through mode interpolation. arXiv:2406.09358, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    ElectricityLoadDiagrams20112014

    Artur Trindade. ElectricityLoadDiagrams20112014. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C58C86

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    Weather data

    Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry. Weather data. https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/ wetter/, 2024. Accessed: 2025-01-16

    2024

  54. [62]

    Performance measurement system (pems)

    California Department of Transportation. Performance measurement system (pems). http: //pems.dot.ca.gov/, 2024. Accessed: 2025-01-16

    2024

  55. [63]

    Fluview: Flu activity & surveillance

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fluview: Flu activity & surveillance. https: //gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/fluportaldashboard.html, 2024. Accessed: 2025-01- 16

    2024

  56. [64]

    Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting

    Haoyi Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Jieqi Peng, Shuai Zhang, Jianxin Li, Hui Xiong, and Wancai Zhang. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In Proc. AAAI conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers

    Yuqi Nie, Nam H Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam. A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers. arXiv:2211.14730, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    P Kingma Diederik. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Super-convergence: Very fast training of neural networks using large learning rates

    Leslie N Smith and Nicholay Topin. Super-convergence: Very fast training of neural networks using large learning rates. In Artificial intelligence and machine learning for multi-domain operations applications, volume 11006, pages 369–386. SPIE, 2019. 13 A Other Metrics It has ...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.