ensemble method research paper

• Corpus ID: 10765854

Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning

• Thomas G. Dietterich
• Published 2007
• Computer Science, Mathematics

Figures from this paper

941 Citations

Research on applied technology in experiments with three boosting algorithms, ensemble machine learning for multi-class classification tasks, bagging different instead of similar models for regression and classification problems, unsupervised evaluation and weighted aggregation of ranked predictions, comparing boosting and bagging for decision trees of rankings, ensemble pruning via quadratic margin maximization, seeing the forest through the trees, cascade ensembles, an experiment to improve classification accuracy using ensemble methods, a simple plug-in bagging ensemble based on threshold-moving for classifying binary and multiclass imbalanced data, 22 references, an experimental comparison of three methods for constructing ensembles of decision trees: bagging, boosting, and randomization, an empirical comparison of voting classification algorithms: bagging, boosting, and variants, error correlation and error reduction in ensemble classifiers, experiments with a new boosting algorithm, bagging predictors, improved boosting algorithms using confidence-rated predictions, using output codes to boost multiclass learning problems, boosting the margin: a new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods, solving multiclass learning problems via error-correcting output codes, multiple decision trees, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Popular Ensemble Methods: An Empirical Study

Article sidebar, main article content, article details.

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Ensemble Stacking Case-Based Reasoning for Regression

• Conference paper
• First Online: 24 June 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Daniel Soto-Forero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0753-4673 27 ,
• Marie-Laure Betbeder   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8103-4098 27 &
• Julien Henriet   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7671-4574 27  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 14775))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning

33 Accesses

This paper presents a case-based reasoning algorithm with a two-stage iterative double stacking to find approximate solutions to one and multidimensional regression problems. This approach does not require training, so it can work with dynamic data at run time. The solutions are generated using stochastic algorithms in order to allow exploration of the solution space. The evaluation is performed by transforming the regression problem into an optimization problem with an associated objective function. The algorithm has been tested in comparison with nine classical regression algorithms on ten different regression databases extracted from the UCI site. The results show that the proposed algorithm generates solutions in most cases quite close to the real solutions. According to the RMSE, the proposed algorithm globally among the four best algorithms, according to MAE, to the fourth best algorithms of the ten evaluated, suggesting that the results are reasonably good.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ali, M., et al.: Effective network intrusion detection using stacking-based ensemble approach. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 22 , 1781–1798 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-023-00718-7

Article   Google Scholar  

Bakurov, I., Castelli, M., Gau, O., Fontanella, F., Vanneschi, L.: Genetic programming for stacked generalization. Swarm Evol. Comput. 65 , 100913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2021.100913 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210650221000742

Cao, D., Xing, H., Wong, M.S., Kwan, M.P., Xing, H., Meng, Y.: A stacking ensemble deep learning model for building extraction from remote sensing images. Remote Sens. 13 (19) (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13193898 . https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/19/3898

Choi, J., Suh, D., Otto, M.O.: Boosted stacking ensemble machine learning method for wafer map pattern classification. Comput. Mater. Continua 74 (2), 2945–2966 (2023). https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2023.033417 . http://www.techscience.com/cmc/v74n2/50296

Jiao, L., Yang, H., ga Liu, Z., Pan, Q.: Interpretable fuzzy clustering using unsupervised fuzzy decision trees. Inf. Sci. 611 , 540–563 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.08.077 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025522009872

Ju, X., Salibiãn-Barrera, M.: Robust boosting for regression problems. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 153 , 107065 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2020.107065 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947320301560

Jung, S., Lim, T., Kim, D.: Integrating radial basis function networks with case-based reasoning for product design. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (3, Part 1), 5695–5701 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.099 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417408003667

Leake, D., Crandall, D.: On bringing case-based reasoning methodology to deep learning. In: Watson, I., Weber, R. (eds.) ICCBR 2020. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 12311, pp. 343–348. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58342-2_22

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lepage, Y., Lieber, J., Mornard, I., Nauer, E., Romary, J., Sies, R.: The French correction : when retrieval is harder to specify than adaptation. In: Watson, I., Weber, R. (eds.) ICCBR 2020. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 12311, pp. 309–324. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58342-2_20

Li, J., et al.: Hierarchical and partitioned planning strategy for closed-loop devices in low-voltage distribution network based on improved kmeans partition method. Energy Rep. 9 , 477–485 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.05.161 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484723009137 . 2022 The 3rd International Conference on Power and Electrical Engineering

Liang, M., et al.: A stacking ensemble learning framework for genomic prediction. Front. Genetics 12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.600040 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.600040

Mang, L., et al.: A stacking ensemble learning framework for genomic prediction. Front. Genet. (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.600040

Petrovic, S., Khussainova, G., Jagannathan, R.: Knowledge-light adaptation approaches in case-based reasoning for radiotherapy treatment planning. Artif. Intell. Med. 68 , 17–28 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2016.01.006 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S093336571630015X

Rakesh, S., et al.: Moving object detection using modified GMM based background subtraction. Measur. Sens. 30 , 100898 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2023.100898 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665917423002349

Richter, M.M., Michael, M.: Knowledge containers. In: Readings in Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Burlington (2003)

Google Scholar  

Roldan Reyes, E., Negny, S., Cortes Robles, G., Le Lann, J.: Improvement of online adaptation knowledge acquisition and reuse in case-based reasoning: application to process engineering design. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 41 , 1–16 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2015.01.015 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952197615000263

Saxena, N., et al.: Hybrid KNN-SVM machine learning approach for solar power forecasting. Environ. Chall. 14 , 100838 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2024.100838 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010024000040

Uysal, F., Sonmez, R.: Bootstrap aggregated case-based reasoning method for conceptual cost estimation. Buildings 13 (3) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030651 . https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/13/3/651

Yu, L., Li, M.: A case-based reasoning driven ensemble learning paradigm for financial distress prediction with missing data. Appl. Soft Comput. 137 , 110163 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110163 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568494623001813

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DISC, Université de Franche-Comté, CNRS, Institut FEMTO-ST, 16 Route de Gray, 25000, Besançon, France

Daniel Soto-Forero, Marie-Laure Betbeder & Julien Henriet

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Soto-Forero .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Juan A. Recio-Garcia

Tecnológico Nacional de México / IT de Mérida, Merida, Mexico

Mauricio G. Orozco-del-Castillo

University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Derek Bridge

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Soto-Forero, D., Betbeder, ML., Henriet, J. (2024). Ensemble Stacking Case-Based Reasoning for Regression. In: Recio-Garcia, J.A., Orozco-del-Castillo, M.G., Bridge, D. (eds) Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development. ICCBR 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14775. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63646-2_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63646-2_11

Published : 24 June 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-63645-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-63646-2

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing

Title: ensemble method for system failure detection using large-scale telemetry data.

Abstract: The growing reliance on computer systems, particularly personal computers (PCs), necessitates heightened reliability to uphold user satisfaction. This research paper presents an in-depth analysis of extensive system telemetry data, proposing an ensemble methodology for detecting system failures. Our approach entails scrutinizing various parameters of system metrics, encompassing CPU utilization, memory utilization, disk activity, CPU temperature, and pertinent system metadata such as system age, usage patterns, core count, and processor type. The proposed ensemble technique integrates a diverse set of algorithms, including Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, isolation forests, one-class support vector machines (OCSVM), and local outlier factors (LOF), to effectively discern system failures. Specifically, the LSTM network with other machine learning techniques is trained on Intel Computing Improvement Program (ICIP) telemetry software data to distinguish between normal and failed system patterns. Experimental evaluations demonstrate the remarkable efficacy of our models, achieving a notable detection rate in identifying system failures. Our research contributes to advancing the field of system reliability and offers practical insights for enhancing user experience in computing environments.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

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 .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Ensemble Methods

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Last »
• Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs) Follow Following
• Classification (Machine Learning) Follow Following
• Yeast Biotechnology Follow Following
• Reinforcement Learning Follow Following
• Microarray Data Analysis Follow Following
• Kalman Filter Follow Following
• K-means Follow Following
• Complex Adaptive Systems Follow Following
• Machine Learning Follow Following
• Complex Systems Science Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 19 June 2024

Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy

• Sebastian Farquhar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9185-6415 1   na1 ,
• Jannik Kossen 1   na1 ,
• Lorenz Kuhn 1   na1 &
• Yarin Gal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2733-2078 1  

Nature volume  630 ,  pages 625–630 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

77k Accesses

1 Citations

1487 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Computer science
• Information technology

Large language model (LLM) systems, such as ChatGPT 1 or Gemini 2 , can show impressive reasoning and question-answering capabilities but often ‘hallucinate’ false outputs and unsubstantiated answers 3 , 4 . Answering unreliably or without the necessary information prevents adoption in diverse fields, with problems including fabrication of legal precedents 5 or untrue facts in news articles 6 and even posing a risk to human life in medical domains such as radiology 7 . Encouraging truthfulness through supervision or reinforcement has been only partially successful 8 . Researchers need a general method for detecting hallucinations in LLMs that works even with new and unseen questions to which humans might not know the answer. Here we develop new methods grounded in statistics, proposing entropy-based uncertainty estimators for LLMs to detect a subset of hallucinations—confabulations—which are arbitrary and incorrect generations. Our method addresses the fact that one idea can be expressed in many ways by computing uncertainty at the level of meaning rather than specific sequences of words. Our method works across datasets and tasks without a priori knowledge of the task, requires no task-specific data and robustly generalizes to new tasks not seen before. By detecting when a prompt is likely to produce a confabulation, our method helps users understand when they must take extra care with LLMs and opens up new possibilities for using LLMs that are otherwise prevented by their unreliability.

Similar content being viewed by others

Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3

Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold

A Multimodal Generative AI Copilot for Human Pathology

‘Hallucinations’ are a critical problem 9 for natural language generation systems using large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT 1 or Gemini 2 , because users cannot trust that any given output is correct.

Hallucinations are often defined as LLMs generating “content that is nonsensical or unfaithful to the provided source content” 9 , 10 , 11 but they have come to include a vast array of failures of faithfulness and factuality. We focus on a subset of hallucinations which we call ‘confabulations’ 12 for which LLMs fluently make claims that are both wrong and arbitrary—by which we mean that the answer is sensitive to irrelevant details such as random seed. For example, when asked a medical question “What is the target of Sotorasib?” an LLM confabulates by sometimes answering KRASG12 ‘C’ (correct) and other times KRASG12 ‘D’ (incorrect) despite identical instructions. We distinguish this from cases in which a similar ‘symptom’ is caused by the following different mechanisms: when LLMs are consistently wrong as a result of being trained on erroneous data such as common misconceptions 13 ; when the LLM ‘lies’ in pursuit of a reward 14 ; or systematic failures of reasoning or generalization. We believe that combining these distinct mechanisms in the broad category hallucination is unhelpful. Our method makes progress on a portion of the problem of providing scalable oversight 15 by detecting confabulations that people might otherwise find plausible. However, it does not guarantee factuality because it does not help when LLM outputs are systematically bad. Nevertheless, we significantly improve question-answering accuracy for state-of-the-art LLMs, revealing that confabulations are a great source of error at present.

We show how to detect confabulations by developing a quantitative measure of when an input is likely to cause an LLM to generate arbitrary and ungrounded answers. Detecting confabulations allows systems built on LLMs to avoid answering questions likely to cause confabulations, to make users aware of the unreliability of answers to a question or to supplement the LLM with more grounded search or retrieval. This is essential for the critical emerging field of free-form generation in which naive approaches, suited to closed vocabulary and multiple choice, fail. Past work on uncertainty for LLMs has focused on simpler settings, such as classifiers 16 , 17 and regressors 18 , 19 , whereas the most exciting applications of LLMs relate to free-form generations.

The term hallucination in the context of machine learning originally comes from filling in ungrounded details, either as a deliberate strategy 20 or as a reliability problem 4 . The appropriateness of the metaphor has been questioned as promoting undue anthropomorphism 21 . Although we agree that metaphor must be used carefully with LLMs 22 , the widespread adoption of the term hallucination reflects the fact that it points to an important phenomenon. This work represents a step towards making that phenomenon more precise.

To detect confabulations, we use probabilistic tools to define and then measure the ‘semantic’ entropy of the generations of an LLM—an entropy that is computed over meanings of sentences. High entropy corresponds to high uncertainty 23 , 24 , 25 —so semantic entropy is one way to estimate semantic uncertainties. Semantic uncertainty, the broader category of measures we introduce, could be operationalized with other measures of uncertainty, such as mutual information, instead. Entropy in free-form generation is normally hard to measure because answers might mean the same thing (be semantically equivalent) despite being expressed differently (being syntactically or lexically distinct). This causes naive estimates of entropy or other lexical variation scores 26 to be misleadingly high when the same correct answer might be written in many ways without changing its meaning.

By contrast, our semantic entropy moves towards estimating the entropy of the distribution of meanings of free-form answers to questions, insofar as that is possible, rather than the distribution over the ‘tokens’ (words or word-pieces) which LLMs natively represent. This can be seen as a kind of semantic consistency check 27 for random seed variation. An overview of our approach is provided in Fig. 1 and a worked example in Supplementary Table 1 .

a , Naive entropy-based uncertainty measures variation in the exact answers, treating ‘Paris’, ‘It’s Paris’ and ‘France’s capital Paris’ as different. But this is unsuitable for language tasks for which sometimes different answers mean the same things. Our semantic entropy clusters answers which share meanings before computing the entropy. A low semantic entropy shows that the LLM is confident about the meaning. b , Semantic entropy can also detect confabulations in longer passages. We automatically decompose a long generated answer into factoids. For each factoid, an LLM generates questions to which that factoid might have been the answer. The original LLM then samples  M possible answers to these questions. Finally, we compute the semantic entropy over the answers to each specific question, including the original factoid. Confabulations are indicated by high average semantic entropy for questions associated with that factoid. Here, semantic entropy classifies Fact 1 as probably not a confabulation because generations often mean the same thing, despite very different wordings, which a naive entropy would have missed.

Intuitively, our method works by sampling several possible answers to each question and clustering them algorithmically into answers that have similar meanings, which we determine on the basis of whether answers in the same cluster entail each other bidirectionally 28 . That is, if sentence A entails that sentence B is true and vice versa, then we consider them to be in the same semantic cluster. We measure entailment using both general-purpose LLMs and natural language inference (NLI) tools developed specifically for detecting entailment for which we show direct evaluations in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 and Supplementary Fig. 1 . Textual entailment has previously been shown to correlate with faithfulness 10 in the context of factual consistency 29 as well as being used to measure factuality in abstractive summarization 30 , especially when applied at the right granularity 31 .

Semantic entropy detects confabulations in free-form text generation across a range of language models and domains, without previous domain knowledge. Our evaluations cover question answering in trivia knowledge (TriviaQA 32 ), general knowledge (SQuAD 1.1; ref. 33 ), life sciences (BioASQ 34 ) and open-domain natural questions (NQ-Open 35 ) derived from actual queries to Google Search 36 . In addition, semantic entropy detects confabulations in mathematical word problems (SVAMP 37 ) and in a biography-generation dataset, FactualBio, accompanying this paper.

Our results for TriviaQA, SQuAD, BioASQ, NQ-Open and SVAMP are all evaluated context-free and involve sentence-length answers (96 ± 70 characters, mean ± s.d.) and use LLaMA 2 Chat (7B, 13B and 70B parameters) 38 , Falcon Instruct (7B and 40B) 39 and Mistral Instruct (7B) 40 . In the Supplementary Information , we further consider short-phrase-length answers. Results for FactualBio (442 ± 122 characters) use GPT-4 (ref. 1 ). At the time of writing, GPT-4 (ref. 1 ) did not expose output probabilities 41 or hidden states, although it does now. As a result, we propose a discrete approximation of our estimator for semantic entropy which allows us to run experiments without access to output probabilities, which we use for all GPT-4 results in this paper and which performs similarly well.

Our confabulation detection with semantic entropy is more robust to user inputs from previously unseen domains than methods which aim to ‘learn’ how to detect confabulations from a set of example demonstrations. Our method is unsupervised, meaning that we do not need labelled examples of confabulations. By contrast, supervised methods detect confabulations by learning patterns behind examples of confabulations, assuming that future questions preserve these patterns. But this assumption is often untrue in new situations or with confabulations that human overseers are unable to identify (compare Fig. 17 of ref. 24 ). As a strong supervised baseline, we compare to an embedding regression method inspired by ref. 24 which trains a logistic regression classifier to predict whether the model correctly answered a question on the basis of the final ‘embedding’ (hidden state) of the LLM. We also use the P (True) method 24 which looks at the probability with which an LLM predicts that the next token is ‘True’ when few-shot prompted to compare a main answer with ‘brainstormed’ alternatives.

Confabulations contribute substantially to incorrect answers given by language models. We show that semantic entropy can be used to predict many incorrect model answers and to improve question-answering accuracy by refusing to answer those questions the model is uncertain about. Corresponding to these two uses, we evaluate two main metrics. First, the widely used area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for the binary event that a given answer is incorrect. This measure captures both precision and recall and ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 representing a perfect classifier and 0.5 representing an un-informative classifier. We also show a new measure, the area under the ‘rejection accuracy’ curve (AURAC). This studies the case in which the confabulation detection score is used to refuse to answer the questions judged most likely to cause confabulations. Rejection accuracy is the accuracy of the answers of the model on the remaining questions and the area under this curve is a summary statistic over many thresholds (representative threshold accuracies are provided in Supplementary Material ). The AURAC captures the accuracy improvement which users would experience if semantic entropy was used to filter out questions causing the highest entropy.

Detecting confabulations in QA and math

In Fig. 2 , we show that both semantic entropy and its discrete approximation outperform our best baselines for sentence-length generations. These results are averaged across datasets and provide the actual scores on the held-out evaluation dataset. We report the raw average score across held-out evaluation datasets without standard error because the distributional characteristics are more a property of the models and datasets selected than the method. Consistency of relative results across different datasets is a stronger indicator of variation in this case.

Semantic entropy outperforms leading baselines and naive entropy. AUROC (scored on the y -axes) measures how well methods predict LLM mistakes, which correlate with confabulations. AURAC (likewise scored on the y -axes) measures the performance improvement of a system that refuses to answer questions which are judged likely to cause confabulations. Results are an average over five datasets, with individual metrics provided in the Supplementary Information .

Semantic entropy greatly outperforms the naive estimation of uncertainty using entropy: computing the entropy of the length-normalized joint probability of the token sequences. Naive entropy estimation ignores the fact that token probabilities also express the uncertainty of the model over phrasings that do not change the meaning of an output.

Our methods also outperform the supervised embedding regression method both in- and out-of-distribution. In pale-yellow bars we show that embedding regression performance deteriorates when its training data do not match the deployment distribution—which mirrors the common real-world case in which there is a distribution shift between training and deployment 42 —the plotted value is the average metric for embedding regression trained on one of the four ‘off-distribution’ datasets for that evaluation. This is critical because reliable uncertainty is most important when the data distribution shifts. Semantic entropy also outperforms P (True) which is supervised ‘in-context’; that is, it is adapted to the deployment task with a few training examples provided in the LLM prompt itself. The discrete variant of semantic entropy performs similarly to our standard estimator, despite not requiring exact output probabilities.

Averaged across the 30 combinations of tasks and models we study, semantic entropy achieves the best AUROC value of 0.790 whereas naive entropy (0.691), P (True) (0.698) and the embedding regression baseline (0.687) lag behind it. Semantic entropy performs well consistently, with stable performance (between 0.78 and 0.81 AUROC) across the different model families (LLaMA, Falcon and Mistral) and scales (from 7B to 70B parameters) which we study (we report summary statistics for each dataset and model as before). Although semantic entropy outperforms the baselines across all model sizes, P (True) seems to improve with model size, suggesting that it might become more competitive for very capable honest models in settings that the model understands well (which are, however, not the most important cases to have good uncertainty). We use ten generations to compute entropy, selected using analysis in Supplementary Fig. 2 . Further results for short-phrase generations are described in Supplementary Figs. 7 – 10 .

The results in Fig. 2 offer a lower bound on the effectiveness of semantic entropy at detecting confabulations. These evaluations determine whether semantic entropy and baseline methods can detect when the answers of the model are incorrect (which we validate against human correctness evaluations in Supplementary Table 4 ). In addition to errors from confabulations (arbitrary incorrectness), this also includes other types of mistakes for which semantic entropy is not suited, such as consistent errors learned from the training data. The fact that methods such as embedding regression are able to spot other kinds of errors, not just confabulations, but still are outperformed by semantic entropy, suggests that confabulations are a principal category of errors for actual generations.

Examples of questions and answers from TriviaQA, SQuAD and BioASQ, for LLaMA 2 Chat 70B, are shown in Table 1 . These illustrate how only semantic entropy detects when the meaning is constant but the form varies (the first row of the table) whereas semantic entropy and naive entropy both correctly predict the presence of confabulations when the form and meaning vary together (second row) and predict the absence of confabulations when the form and meaning are both constant across several resampled generations (third row). In the final row, we give an example in which semantic entropy is erroneously high as a result of overly sensitive semantic clustering relative to the reference answer. Our clustering method distinguishes the answers which provide a precise date from those which only provide a year. For some contexts that would have been correct but in this context the distinction between the specific day and the year is probably irrelevant. This highlights the importance of context and judgement in clustering, especially in subtle cases, as well as the shortcomings of evaluating against fixed reference answers which do not capture the open-ended flexibility of conversational deployments of LLMs.

Detecting confabulations in biographies

Semantic entropy is most natural for sentences that express a single proposition but the idea of semantic equivalence is trickier to apply to longer passages which express many propositions which might only agree partially 43 . Nevertheless, we can use semantic entropy to detect confabulations in longer generations, such as entire paragraphs of text. To show this, we develop a dataset of biographical generations from GPT-4 (v.0613) for 21 individuals notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page but without extensive online biographies. From each biography generated by GPT-4, we automatically extract propositional factual claims about the individual (150 factual claims in total), which we manually label as true or false.

Applying semantic entropy to this problem is challenging. Naively, one might simply regenerate each sentence (conditioned on the text so far) and then compute semantic entropy over these regenerations. However, the resampled sentences often target different aspects of the biography: for example, one time describing family and the next time profession. This is analogous to the original problem semantic entropy was designed to resolve: the model is uncertain about the right ordering of facts, not about the facts themselves. To address this, we break down the entire paragraph into factual claims and reconstruct questions which might have been answered by those claims. Only then do we apply semantic entropy (Fig. 1 ) by generating three new answers to each question (selected with analysis in Supplementary Figs. 3 and 4 ) and computing the semantic entropy over those generations plus the original factual claim. We aggregate these by averaging the semantic entropy over all the questions to get an uncertainty score for each proposition, which we use to detect confabulations. Unaggregated results are shown in Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6 .

As GPT-4 did not allow access to the probability of the generation at the time of writing, we use a discrete variant of semantic entropy which makes the further approximation that we can infer a discrete empirical distribution over semantic meaning clusters from only the generations ( Methods ). This allows us to compute semantic entropy using only the black-box outputs of an LLM. However, we were unable to compute the naive entropy baseline, the standard semantic entropy estimator or the embedding regression baseline for GPT-4 without output probabilities and embeddings.

In Fig. 3 we show that the discrete variant of semantic entropy effectively detects confabulations on this dataset. Its AUROC and AURAC are higher than either a simple ‘self-check’ baseline—which just asks the LLM whether the factoid is likely to be true—or a variant of P (True) which has been adapted to work for the paragraph-length setting. Discrete semantic entropy has better rejection accuracy performance until 20% of the questions have been rejected at which point P (True) has a narrow edge. This indicates that the questions predicted to cause confabulations are indeed more likely to be wrong.

The discrete variant of our semantic entropy estimator outperforms baselines both when measured by AUROC and AURAC metrics (scored on the y -axis). The AUROC and AURAC are substantially higher than for both baselines. At above 80% of questions being answered, semantic entropy has the highest accuracy. Only when the top 20% of answers judged most likely to be confabulations are rejected does the answer accuracy on the remainder for the P (True) baseline exceed semantic entropy.

Our probabilistic approach, accounting for semantic equivalence, detects an important class of hallucinations: those that are caused by a lack of LLM knowledge. These are a substantial portion of the failures at present and will continue even as models grow in capabilities because situations and cases that humans cannot reliably supervise will persist. Confabulations are a particularly noteworthy failure mode for question answering but appear in other domains too. Semantic entropy needs no previous domain knowledge and we expect that algorithmic adaptations to other problems will allow similar advances in, for example, abstractive summarization. In addition, extensions to alternative input variations such as rephrasing or counterfactual scenarios would allow a similar method to act as a form of cross-examination 44 for scalable oversight through debate 45 .

The success of semantic entropy at detecting errors suggests that LLMs are even better at “knowing what they don’t know” than was argued by ref. 24 —they just don’t know they know what they don’t know. Our method explicitly does not directly address situations in which LLMs are confidently wrong because they have been trained with objectives that systematically produce dangerous behaviour, cause systematic reasoning errors or are systematically misleading the user. We believe that these represent different underlying mechanisms—despite similar ‘symptoms’—and need to be handled separately.

One exciting aspect of our approach is the way it makes use of classical probabilistic machine learning methods and adapts them to the unique properties of modern LLMs and free-form language generation. We hope to inspire a fruitful exchange of well-studied methods and emerging new problems by highlighting the importance of meaning when addressing language-based machine learning problems.

Semantic entropy as a strategy for overcoming confabulation builds on probabilistic tools for uncertainty estimation. It can be applied directly to any LLM or similar foundation model without requiring any modifications to the architecture. Our ‘discrete’ variant of semantic uncertainty can be applied even when the predicted probabilities for the generations are not available, for example, because access to the internals of the model is limited.

In this section we introduce background on probabilistic methods and uncertainty in machine learning, discuss how it applies to language models and then discuss our contribution, semantic entropy, in detail.

Uncertainty and machine learning

We aim to detect confabulations in LLMs, using the principle that the model will be uncertain about generations for which its output is going to be arbitrary.

One measure of uncertainty is the predictive entropy of the output distribution, which measures the information one has about the output given the input 25 . The predictive entropy (PE) for an input sentence x is the conditional entropy ( H ) of the output random variable Y with realization y given x ,

A low predictive entropy indicates an output distribution which is heavily concentrated whereas a high predictive entropy indicates that many possible outputs are similarly likely.

Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty

We do not distinguish between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in our analysis. Researchers sometimes separate aleatoric uncertainty (uncertainty in the underlying data distribution) from epistemic uncertainty (caused by having only limited information) 46 . Further advances in uncertainty estimation which separate these kinds of uncertainty would enhance the potential for our semantic uncertainty approach by allowing extensions beyond entropy.

Joint probabilities of sequences of tokens

Generative LLMs produce strings of text by selecting tokens in sequence. Each token is a wordpiece that often represents three or four characters (though especially common sequences and important words such as numbers typically get their own token). To compute entropies, we need access to the probabilities the LLM assigns to the generated sequence of tokens. The probability of the entire sequence, s , conditioned on the context, x , is the product of the conditional probabilities of new tokens given past tokens, whose resulting log-probability is \(\log P({\bf{s}}| {\boldsymbol{x}})={\sum }_{i}\log P({s}_{i}| {{\bf{s}}}_{ < i},{\boldsymbol{x}})\) , where s i is the i th output token and s < i denotes the set of previous tokens.

Length normalization

When comparing the log-probabilities of generated sequences, we use ‘length normalization’, that is, we use an arithmetic mean log-probability, \(\frac{1}{N}{\sum }_{i}^{N}\log P({s}_{i}| {{\bf{s}}}_{ < i},{\boldsymbol{x}})\) , instead of the sum. In expectation, longer sequences have lower joint likelihoods because of the conditional independence of the token probabilities 47 . The joint likelihood of a sequence of length N shrinks exponentially in N . Its negative log-probability therefore grows linearly in N , so longer sentences tend to contribute more to entropy. We therefore interpret length-normalizing the log-probabilities when estimating the entropy as asserting that the expected uncertainty of generations is independent of sentence length. Length normalization has some empirical success 48 , including in our own preliminary experiments, but little theoretical justification in the literature.

Principles of semantic uncertainty

If we naively calculate the predictive entropy directly from the probabilities of the generated sequence of tokens, we conflate the uncertainty of the model over the meaning of its answer with the uncertainty over the exact tokens used to express that meaning. For example, even if the model is confident in the meaning of a generation, there are still usually many different ways for phrasing that generation without changing its meaning. For the purposes of detecting confabulations, the uncertainty of the LLM over meanings is more important than the uncertainty over the exact tokens used to express those meanings.

Our semantic uncertainty method therefore seeks to estimate only the uncertainty the LLM has over the meaning of its generation, not the choice of words. To do this, we introduce an algorithm that clusters model generations by meaning and subsequently calculates semantic uncertainty. At a high level this involves three steps:

Generation: sample output sequences of tokens from the predictive distribution of a LLM given a context x .

Clustering: cluster sequences by their meaning using our clustering algorithm based on bidirectional entailment.

Entropy estimation: estimate semantic entropy by summing probabilities of sequences that share a meaning following equation ( 2 ) and compute their entropy.

Generating a set of answers from the model

Given some context x as input to the LLM, we sample M sequences, { s (1) , …,  s ( M ) } and record their token probabilities, { P ( s (1) ∣ x ), …,  P ( s ( M ) ∣ x )}. We sample all our generations from a single model, varying only the random seed used for sampling from the token probabilities. We do not observe the method to be particularly sensitive to details of the sampling scheme. In our implementation, we sample at temperature 1 using nucleus sampling ( P  = 0.9) (ref. 49 ) and top- K sampling ( K  = 50) (ref. 50 ). We also sample a single generation at low temperature (0.1) as an estimate of the ‘best generation’ of the model to the context, which we use to assess the accuracy of the model. (A lower sampling temperature increases the probability of sampling the most likely tokens).

Clustering by semantic equivalence

To estimate semantic entropy we need to cluster generated outputs from the model into groups of outputs that mean the same thing as each other.

This can be described using ‘semantic equivalence’ which is the relation that holds between two sentences when they mean the same thing. We can formalize semantic equivalence mathematically. Let the space of tokens in a language be \({\mathcal{T}}\) . The space of all possible sequences of tokens of length N is then \({{\mathcal{S}}}_{N}\equiv {{\mathcal{T}}}^{N}\) . Note that N can be made arbitrarily large to accommodate whatever size of sentence one can imagine and one of the tokens can be a ‘padding’ token which occurs with certainty for each token after the end-of-sequence token. For some sentence \({\bf{s}}\in {{\mathcal{S}}}_{N}\) , composed of a sequence of tokens, \({s}_{i}\in {\mathcal{T}}\) , there is an associated meaning. Theories of meaning are contested 51 . However, for specific models and deployment contexts many considerations can be set aside. Care should be taken comparing very different models and contexts.

Let us introduce a semantic equivalence relation, E (  ⋅  ,  ⋅  ), which holds for any two sentences that mean the same thing—we will operationalize this presently. Recall that an equivalence relation is any reflexive, symmetric and transitive relation and that any equivalence relation on a set corresponds to a set of equivalence classes. Each semantic equivalence class captures outputs that can be considered to express the same meaning. That is, for the space of semantic equivalence classes \({\mathcal{C}}\) the sentences in the set \(c\in {\mathcal{C}}\) can be regarded in many settings as expressing a similar meaning such that \(\forall {\bf{s}},{{\bf{s}}}^{{\prime} }\in c:E({\bf{s}},{{\bf{s}}}^{{\prime} })\) . So we can build up these classes of semantically equivalent sentences by checking if new sentences share a meaning with any sentences we have already clustered and, if so, adding them into that class.

We operationalize E (  ⋅  ,  ⋅  ) using the idea of bidirectional entailment, which has a long history in linguistics 52 and natural language processing 28 , 53 , 54 . A sequence, s , means the same thing as a second sequence, s ′, only if the sequences entail (that is, logically imply) each other. For example, ‘The capital of France is Paris’ entails ‘Paris is the capital of France’ and vice versa because they mean the same thing. (See later for a discussion of soft equivalence and cases in which bidirectional entailment does not guarantee equivalent meanings).

Importantly, we require that the sequences mean the same thing with respect to the context—key meaning is sometimes contained in the context. For example, ‘Paris’ does not entail ‘The capital of France is Paris’ because ‘Paris’ is not a declarative sentence without context. But in the context of the question ‘What is the capital of France?’, the one-word answer does entail the longer answer.

Detecting entailment has been the object of study of a great deal of research in NLI 55 . We rely on language models to predict entailment, such as DeBERTa-Large-MNLI 56 , which has been trained to predict entailment, or general-purpose LLMs such as GPT-3.5 (ref. 57 ), which can predict entailment given suitable prompts.

We then cluster sentences according to whether they bidirectionally entail each other using the algorithm presented in Extended Data Fig. 1 . Note that, to check if a sequence should be added to an existing cluster, it is sufficient to check if the sequence bidirectionally entails any of the existing sequences in that cluster (we arbitrarily pick the first one), given the transitivity of semantic equivalence. If a sequence does not share meaning with any existing cluster, we assign it its own cluster.

Computing the semantic entropy

Having determined the classes of generated sequences that mean the same thing, we can estimate the likelihood that a sequence generated by the LLM belongs to a given class by computing the sum of the probabilities of all the possible sequences of tokens which can be considered to express the same meaning as

Formally, this treats the output as a random variable whose event-space is the space of all possible meaning-classes, C , a sub- σ -algebra of the standard event-space S . We can then estimate the semantic entropy (SE) as the entropy over the meaning-distribution,

There is a complication which prevents direct computation: we do not have access to every possible meaning-class c . Instead, we can only sample c from the sequence-generating distribution induced by the model. To handle this, we estimate the expectation in equation ( 3 ) using a Rao–Blackwellized Monte Carlo integration over the semantic equivalence classes C ,

where \(P({C}_{i}| {\boldsymbol{x}})=\frac{P({c}_{i}| {\boldsymbol{x}})}{{\sum }_{c}P(c| {\boldsymbol{x}})}\) estimates a categorical distribution over the cluster meanings, that is, ∑ i P ( C i ∣ x ) = 1. Without this normalization step cluster ‘probabilities’ could exceed one because of length normalization, resulting in degeneracies. Equation ( 5 ) is the estimator giving our main method that we refer to as semantic entropy throughout the text.

For scenarios in which the sequence probabilities are not available, we propose a variant of semantic entropy which we call ‘discrete’ semantic entropy. Discrete semantic entropy approximates P ( C i ∣ x ) directly from the number of generations in each cluster, disregarding the token probabilities. That is, we approximate P ( C i ∣ x ) as \({\sum }_{1}^{M}\frac{{I}_{c={C}_{i}}}{M}\) , the proportion of all the sampled answers which belong to that cluster. Effectively, this just assumes that each output that was actually generated was equally probable—estimating the underlying distribution as the categorical empirical distribution. In the limit of M the estimator converges to equation ( 5 ) by the law of large numbers. We find that discrete semantic entropy results in similar performance empirically.

We provide a worked example of the computation of semantic entropy in Supplementary Note  1 .

Semantic entropy is designed to detect confabulations, that is, model outputs with arbitrary meaning. In our experiments, we use semantic uncertainty to predict model accuracy, demonstrating that confabulations make up a notable fraction of model mistakes. We further show that semantic uncertainty can be used to improve model accuracy by refusing to answer questions when semantic uncertainty is high. Last, semantic uncertainty can be used to give users a way to know when model generations are probably unreliable.

We use the datasets BioASQ 34 , SQuAD 33 , TriviaQA 32 , SVAMP 37 and NQ-Open 35 . BioASQ is a life-sciences question-answering dataset based on the annual challenge of the same name. The specific dataset we use is based on the QA dataset from Task B of the 2023 BioASQ challenge (11B). SQuAD is a reading comprehension dataset whose context passages are drawn from Wikipedia and for which the answers to questions can be found in these passages. We use SQuAD 1.1 which excludes the unanswerable questions added in v.2.0 that are deliberately constructed to induce mistakes so they do not in practice cause confabulations to occur. TriviaQA is a trivia question-answering dataset. SVAMP is a word-problem maths dataset containing elementary-school mathematical reasoning tasks. NQ-Open is a dataset of realistic questions aggregated from Google Search which have been chosen to be answerable without reference to a source text. For each dataset, we use 400 train examples and 400 test examples randomly sampled from the original larger dataset. Note that only some of the methods require training, for example semantic entropy does not use the training data. If the datasets themselves are already split into train and test (or validation) samples, we sample our examples from within the corresponding split.

All these datasets are free-form, rather than multiple choice, because this better captures the opportunities created by LLMs to produce free-form sentences as answers. We refer to this default scenario as our ‘sentence-length’ experiments. In Supplementary Note  7 , we also present results for confabulation detection in a ‘short-phrase’ scenario, in which we constrain model answers on these datasets to be as concise as possible.

To make the problems more difficult and induce confabulations, we do not provide the context passages for any of the datasets. When the context passages are provided, the accuracy rate is too high for these datasets for the latest generations of models to meaningfully study confabulations.

For sentence-length generations we use: Falcon 39 Instruct (7B and 40B), LLaMA 2 Chat 38 (7B, 13B and 70B) and Mistral 40 Instruct (7B).

In addition to reporting results for semantic entropy, discrete semantic entropy and naive entropy, we consider two strong baselines.

Embedding regression is a supervised baseline inspired by the P (IK) method 24 . In that paper, the authors fine-tune their proprietary LLM on a dataset of questions to predict whether the model would have been correct. This requires access to a dataset of ground-truth answers to the questions. Rather than fine-tuning the entire LLM in this way, we simply take the final hidden units and train a logistic regression classifier to make the same prediction. By contrast to their method, this is much simpler because it does not require fine-tuning the entire language model, as well as being more reproducible because the solution to the logistic regression optimization problem is not as seed-dependent as the fine-tuning procedure. As expected, this supervised approach performs well in-distribution but fails when the distribution of questions is different from that on which the classifier is trained.

The second baseline we consider is the P (True) method 24 , in which the model first samples M answers (identically to our semantic entropy approach) and then is prompted with the list of all answers generated followed by the highest probability answer and a question whether this answer is “(a) True” or “(b) False”. The confidence score is then taken to be the probability with which the LLM responds with ‘a’ to the multiple-choice question. The performance of this method is boosted with a few-shot prompt, in which up to 20 examples from the training set are randomly chosen, filled in as above, but then provided with the actual ground truth of whether the proposed answer was true or false. In this way, the method can be considered as supervised ‘in-context’ because it makes use of some ground-truth training labels but can be used without retraining the model. Because of context-size constraints, this method cannot fit a full 20 few-shot examples in the context when input questions are long or large numbers of generations are used. As a result, we sometimes have to reduce the number of few-shot examples to suit the context size and we note this in the  Supplementary Material .

Entailment estimator

Any NLI classification system could be used for our bidirectional entailment clustering algorithm. We consider two different kinds of entailment detector.

One option is to use an instruction-tuned LLM such as LLaMA 2, GPT-3.5 (Turbo 1106) or GPT-4 to predict entailment between generations. We use the following prompt:

We are evaluating answers to the question {question} Here are two possible answers: Possible Answer 1: {text1} Possible Answer 2: {text2} Does Possible Answer 1 semantically entail Possible Answer 2? Respond with entailment, contradiction, or neutral.

Alternatively, we consider using a language model trained for entailment prediction, specifically the DeBERTa-large model 56 fine-tuned on the NLI dataset MNLI 58 . This builds on past work towards paraphrase identification based on embedding similarity 59 , 60 and BERT-style models 61 , 62 . We template more simply, checking if DeBERTa predicts entailment between the concatenation of the question and one answer and the concatenation of the question and another answer. Note that DeBERTa-large is a relatively lightweight model with only 1.5B parameters which is much less powerful than most of the LLMs under study.

In Supplementary Note 2 , we carefully evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of these methods for entailment prediction. We settle on using GPT-3.5 with the above prompt, as its entailment predictions agree well with human raters and lead to good confabulation detection performance.

In Supplementary Note  3 , we provide a discussion of the computational cost and choosing the number of generations for reliable clustering.

Prompting templates

We use a simple generation template for all sentence-length answer datasets:

Answer the following question in a single brief but complete sentence. Question: {question} Answer:

Metrics and accuracy measurements

We use three main metrics to evaluate our method: AUROC, rejection accuracy and AURAC. Each of these is grounded in an automated factuality estimation measurement relative to the reference answers provided by the datasets that we use.

AUROC, rejection accuracy and AURAC

First, we use the AUROC curve, which measures the reliability of a classifier accounting for both precision and recall. The AUROC can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen correct answer has been assigned a higher confidence score than a randomly chosen incorrect answer. For a perfect classifier, this is 1.

Second, we compute the ‘rejection accuracy at X %’, which is the question-answering accuracy of the model on the most-confident X % of the inputs as identified by the respective uncertainty method. If an uncertainty method works well, predictions on the confident subset should be more accurate than predictions on the excluded subset and the rejection accuracy should increase as we reject more inputs.

To summarize this statistic we compute the AURAC—the total area enclosed by the accuracies at all cut-off percentages X %. This should increase towards 1 as given uncertainty method becomes more accurate and better at detecting likely-inaccurate responses but it is more sensitive to the overall accuracy of the model than the AUROC metric.

In Supplementary Note  5 , we provide the unaggregated rejection accuracies for sentence-length generations.

Assessing accuracy

For the short-phrase-length generation setting presented in Supplementary Note  7 , we simply assess the accuracy of the generations by checking if the F1 score of the commonly used SQuAD metric exceeds 0.5. There are limitations to such simple scoring rules 63 but this method is widely used in practice and its error is comparatively small on these standard datasets.

For our default scenario, the longer sentence-length generations, this measure fails, as the overlap between the short reference answer and our long model answer is invariably too small. For sentence-length generations, we therefore automatically determine whether an answer to the question is correct or incorrect by using GPT-4 to compare the given answer to the reference answer. We use the template:

We are assessing the quality of answers to the following question: {question} The expected answer is: {reference answer} The proposed answer is: {predicted answer} Within the context of the question, does the proposed answer mean the same as the expected answer? Respond only with yes or no.

We make a small modification for datasets with several reference answers: line two becomes “The following are expected answers to this question:” and the final line asks “does the proposed answer mean the same as any of the expected answers?”.

In Supplementary Note 6 , we check the quality of our automated ground-truth evaluations against human judgement by hand. We find that GPT-4 gives the best results for determining model accuracy and thus use it in all our sentence-length experiments.

In this section we describe the application of semantic entropy to confabulation detection in longer model generations, specifically paragraph-length biographies.

We introduce a biography-generation dataset—FactualBio—available alongside this paper. FactualBio is a collection of biographies of individuals who are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages but not notable enough to have large amounts of detailed coverage, generated by GPT-4 (v.0613). To generate the dataset, we randomly sampled 21 individuals from the WikiBio dataset 64 . For each biography, we generated a list of factual claims contained in each biography using GPT-4, with 150 total factual claims (the total number is only coincidentally a round number). For each of these factual claims, we manually determined whether the claim was correct or incorrect. Out of 150 claims, 45 were incorrect. As before, we apply confabulation detection to detect incorrect model predictions, even though there may be model errors which are not confabulations.

Prompting and generation

Given a paragraph-length piece of LLM-generated text, we apply the following sequence of steps:

Automatically decompose the paragraph into specific factual claims using an LLM (not necessarily the same as the original).

For each factual claim, use an LLM to automatically construct Q questions which might have produced that claim.

For each question, prompt the original LLM to generate M answers.

For each question, compute the semantic entropy of the answers, including the original factual claim.

Average the semantic entropies over the questions to arrive at a score for the original factual claim.

We pursue this slightly indirect way of generating answers because we find that simply resampling each sentence creates variation unrelated to the uncertainty of the model about the factual claim, such as differences in paragraph structure.

We decompose the paragraph into factual claims using the following prompt:

Please list the specific factual propositions included in the answer above. Be complete and do not leave any factual claims out. Provide each claim as a separate sentence in a separate bullet point.

We found that we agreed with the decompositions in all cases in the dataset.

We then generate six questions for each of the facts from the decomposition. We generate these questions by prompting the model twice with the following:

Following this text: {text so far} You see the sentence: {proposition} Generate a list of three questions, that might have generated the sentence in the context of the preceding original text, as well as their answers. Please do not use specific facts that appear in the follow-up sentence when formulating the question. Make the questions and answers diverse. Avoid yes-no questions. The answers should not be a full sentence and as short as possible, e.g. only a name, place, or thing. Use the format “1. {question} – {answer}”.

These questions are not necessarily well-targeted and the difficulty of this step is the main source of errors in the procedure. We generate three questions with each prompt, as this encourages diversity of the questions, each question targeting a different aspect of the fact. However, we observed that the generated questions will sometimes miss obvious aspects of the fact. Executing the above prompt twice (for a total of six questions) can improve coverage. We also ask for brief answers because the current version of GPT-4 tends to give long, convoluted and highly hedged answers unless explicitly told not to.

Then, for each question, we generate three new answers using the following prompt:

We are writing an answer to the question “{user question}”. So far we have written: {text so far} The next sentence should be the answer to the following question: {question} Please answer this question. Do not answer in a full sentence. Answer with as few words as possible, e.g. only a name, place, or thing.

We then compute the semantic entropy over these answers plus the original factual claim. Including the original fact ensures that the estimator remains grounded in the original claim and helps detect situations in which the question has been interpreted completely differently from the original context. We make a small modification to handle the fact that GPT-4 generations often include refusals to answer questions. These refusals were not something we commonly observe in our experiments with LLaMA 2, Falcon or Mistral models. If more than half of the answers include one of the strings ‘not available’, ‘not provided’, ‘unknown’ or ‘unclear’ then we treat the semantic uncertainty as maximal.

We then average the semantic entropies for each question corresponding to the factual claim to get an entropy for this factual claim.

Despite the extra assumptions and complexity, we find that this method greatly outperforms the baselines.

To compute semantic entailment between the original claim and regenerated answers, we rely on the DeBERTa entailment prediction model as we find empirically that DeBERTa predictions result in higher train-set AUROC than other methods. Because DeBERTa has slightly lower recall than GPT-3.5/4, we use a modified set-up for which we say the answers mean the same as each other if at least one of them entails the other and neither is seen to contradict the other—a kind of ‘non-defeating’ bidirectional entailment check rather than true bidirectional entailment. The good performance of DeBERTa in this scenario is not surprising as both factual claims and regenerated answers are relatively short. We refer to Supplementary Notes 2 and 3 for ablations and experiments regarding our choice of entailment estimator for paragraph-length generations.

We implement two baselines. First, we implement a variant of the P (True) method, which is adapted to the new setting. For each factoid, we generate a question with answers in the same way as for semantic entropy. We then use the following prompt:

Question: {question} Here are some brainstormed ideas: {list of regenerated answers} Possible answer: {original answer} Is the possible answer true? Respond with “yes” or “no”.

As we cannot access the probabilities GPT-4 assigns to predicting ‘yes’ and ‘no’ as the next token, we approximate this using Monte Carlo samples. Concretely, we execute the above prompt ten times (at temperature 1) and then take the fraction of answers which was ‘yes’ as our unbiased Monte Carlo estimate of the token probability GPT-4 assigns to ‘yes’.

As a second, simpler, baseline we check if the model thinks the answer is true. We simply ask:

Following this text: {text so far} You see this statement: {proposition} Is it likely that the statement is true? Respond with ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

It is interesting that this method ought to perform very well if we think that the model has good ‘self-knowledge’ (that is, if “models mostly know what they don’t know” 24 ) but in fact semantic entropy is much better at detecting confabulations.

Data availability

The data used for the short-phrase and sentence-length generations are publicly available and the released code details how to access it. We release a public version of the FactualBio dataset as part of the code base for reproducing the paragraph-length experiments.

Code availability

We release all code used to produce the main experiments. The code for short-phrase and sentence-length experiments can be found at github.com/jlko/semantic_uncertainty and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10964366 (ref. 65 ). The code for paragraph-length experiments can be found at github.com/jlko/long_hallucinations and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10964366 (ref. 65 ).

GPT-4 technical report. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 (2023).

Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11805 (2023).

Xiao, Y. & Wang, W. Y. On hallucination and predictive uncertainty in conditional language generation. In Proc. 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2734–2744 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021).

Rohrbach, A., Hendricks, L. A., Burns, K., Darrell, T. & Saenko, K. Object hallucination in image captioning. In Proc. 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (eds Riloff, E., Chiang, D., Hockenmaier, J. & Tsujii, J.) 4035–4045 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018).

Weiser, B. Lawyer who used ChatGPT faces penalty for made up citations. The New York Times (8 Jun 2023).

Opdahl, A. L. et al. Trustworthy journalism through AI. Data Knowl. Eng . 146 , 102182 (2023).

Shen, Y. et al. ChatGPT and other large language models are double-edged swords. Radiology 307 , e230163 (2023).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Schulman, J. Reinforcement learning from human feedback: progress and challenges. Presented at the Berkeley EECS Colloquium. YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhiLw5Q_UFg (2023).

Ji, Z. et al. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Comput. Surv. 55 , 248 (2023).

Maynez, J., Narayan, S., Bohnet, B. & McDonald, R. On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In Proc. 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (eds Jurafsky, D., Chai, J., Schluter, N. & Tetreault, J.) 1906–1919 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020).

Filippova, K. Controlled hallucinations: learning to generate faithfully from noisy data. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 (eds Webber, B., Cohn, T., He, Y. & Liu, Y.) 864–870 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020).

Berrios, G. Confabulations: a conceptual history. J. Hist. Neurosci. 7 , 225–241 (1998).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lin, S., Hilton, J. & Evans, O. Teaching models to express their uncertainty in words. Transact. Mach. Learn. Res. (2022).

Evans, O. et al. Truthful AI: developing and governing AI that does not lie. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06674 (2021).

Amodei, D. et al. Concrete problems in AI safety. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06565 (2016).

Jiang, Z., Araki, J., Ding, H. & Neubig, G. How can we know when language models know? On the calibration of language models for question answering. Transact. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 9 , 962–977 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Desai, S. & Durrett, G. Calibration of pre-trained transformers. In Proc. 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (eds Webber, B., Cohn, T., He, Y. & Liu, Y.) 295–302 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020).

Glushkova, T., Zerva, C., Rei, R. & Martins, A. F. Uncertainty-aware machine translation evaluation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 (eds Moens, M-F., Huang, X., Specia, L. & Yih, S.) 3920–3938 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021).

Wang, Y., Beck, D., Baldwin, T. & Verspoor, K. Uncertainty estimation and reduction of pre-trained models for text regression. Transact. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 10 , 680–696 (2022).

Baker, S. & Kanade, T. Hallucinating faces. In Proc. Fourth IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition . 83–88 (IEEE, Catalogue no PR00580, 2002).

Eliot, L. AI ethics lucidly questioning this whole hallucinating AI popularized trend that has got to stop. Forbes Magazine (24 August 2022).

Shanahan, M. Talking about large language models. Commun. Assoc. Comp. Machinery 67 , 68–79 (2024).

MacKay, D. J. C. Information-based objective functions for active data selection. Neural Comput. 4 , 590–604 (1992).

Kadavath, S. et al. Language models (mostly) know what they know. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05221 (2022).

Lindley, D. V. On a measure of the information provided by an experiment. Ann. Math. Stat. 27 , 986–1005 (1956).

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Xiao, T. Z., Gomez, A. N. & Gal, Y. Wat zei je? Detecting out-of-distribution translations with variational transformers. In Workshop on Bayesian Deep Learning at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS, Vancouver, 2019).

Christiano, P., Cotra, A. & Xu, M. Eliciting Latent Knowledge (Alignment Research Center, 2021); https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WwsnJQstPq91_Yh-Ch2XRL8H_EpsnjrC1dwZXR37PC8/edit .

Negri, M., Bentivogli, L., Mehdad, Y., Giampiccolo, D. & Marchetti, A. Divide and conquer: crowdsourcing the creation of cross-lingual textual entailment corpora. In Proc. 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 670–679 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011).

Honovich, O. et al. TRUE: Re-evaluating factual consistency evaluation. In Proc. Second DialDoc Workshop on Document-grounded Dialogue and Conversational Question Answering 161–175 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022).

Falke, T., Ribeiro, L. F. R., Utama, P. A., Dagan, I. & Gurevych, I. Ranking generated summaries by correctness: an interesting but challenging application for natural language inference. In Proc. 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2214–2220 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019).

Laban, P., Schnabel, T., Bennett, P. N. & Hearst, M. A. SummaC: re-visiting NLI-based models for inconsistency detection in summarization. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 10 , 163–177 (2022).

Joshi, M., Choi, E., Weld, D. S. & Zettlemoyer, L. TriviaQA: a large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proc. 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 1601–1611 (Association for Computational Linguistics. 2017).

Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K. & Liang, P. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine compression of text. In Proc. 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (eds Su, J., Duh, K. & Carreras, X.) 2383–2392 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2016).

Tsatsaronis, G. et al. An overview of the BIOASQ large-scale biomedical semantic indexing and question answering competition. BMC Bioinformatics 16 , 138 (2015).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lee, K., Chang, M.-W. & Toutanova, K. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proc. 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 6086–6096 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019).

Kwiatkowski, T. et al. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transact. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 7 , 452–466 (2019).

Patel, A., Bhattamishra, S. & Goyal, N. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proc. 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (eds Toutanova, K. et al.) 2080–2094 (Assoc. Comp. Linguistics, 2021).

Touvron, H. et al. Llama 2: open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288 (2023).

Penedo, G. et al. The RefinedWeb dataset for Falcon LLM: outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only. In Proc. 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Oh, A. et al.) 79155–79172 (Curran Associates, 2023)

Jiang, A. Q. et al. Mistral 7B. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06825 (2023).

Manakul, P., Liusie, A. & Gales, M. J. F. SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box hallucination detection for generative large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 (eds Bouamor, H., Pino, J. & Bali, K.) 9004–9017 (Assoc. Comp. Linguistics, 2023).

Mukhoti, J., Kirsch, A., van Amersfoort, J., Torr, P. H. & Gal, Y. Deep deterministic uncertainty: a new simple baseline. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 24384–24394 (Computer Vision Foundation, 2023).

Schuster, T., Chen, S., Buthpitiya, S., Fabrikant, A. & Metzler, D. Stretching sentence-pair NLI models to reason over long documents and clusters. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 (eds Goldberg, Y. et al.) 394–412 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022).

Barnes, B. & Christiano, P. Progress on AI Safety via Debate. AI Alignment Forum www.alignmentforum.org/posts/Br4xDbYu4Frwrb64a/writeup-progress-on-ai-safety-via-debate-1 (2020).

Irving, G., Christiano, P. & Amodei, D. AI safety via debate. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.00899 (2018).

Der Kiureghian, A. & Ditlevsen, O. Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct. Saf. 31 , 105–112 (2009).

Malinin, A. & Gales, M. Uncertainty estimation in autoregressive structured prediction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations https://openreview.net/forum?id=jN5y-zb5Q7m (2021).

Murray, K. & Chiang, D. Correcting length bias in neural machine translation. In Proc. Third Conference on Machine Translation (eds Bojar, O. et al.) 212–223 (Assoc. Comp. Linguistics, 2018).

Holtzman, A., Buys, J., Du, L., Forbes, M. & Choi, Y. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations https://openreview.net/forum?id=rygGQyrFvH (2020).

Fan, A., Lewis, M. & Dauphin, Y. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proc. 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (eds Gurevych, I. & Miyao, Y.) 889–898 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018).

Speaks, J. in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Zalta, E. N.) (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford Univ., 2021).

Culicover, P. W. Paraphrase generation and information retrieval from stored text. Mech. Transl. Comput. Linguist. 11 , 78–88 (1968).

Google Scholar  

Padó, S., Cer, D., Galley, M., Jurafsky, D. & Manning, C. D. Measuring machine translation quality as semantic equivalence: a metric based on entailment features. Mach. Transl. 23 , 181–193 (2009).

Androutsopoulos, I. & Malakasiotis, P. A survey of paraphrasing and textual entailment methods. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 38 , 135–187 (2010).

MacCartney, B. Natural Language Inference (Stanford Univ., 2009).

He, P., Liu, X., Gao, J. & Chen, W. Deberta: decoding-enhanced BERT with disentangled attention. In International Conference on Learning Representations https://openreview.net/forum?id=XPZIaotutsD (2021).

Brown, T. et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33 , 1877–1901 (2020).

Williams, A., Nangia, N. & Bowman, S. R. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proc. 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (eds Walker, M. et al.) 1112–1122 (Assoc. Comp. Linguistics, 2018).

Yu, L., Hermann, K. M., Blunsom, P. & Pulman, S. Deep learning for answer sentence selection. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1632 (2014).

Socher, R., Huang, E., Pennin, J., Manning, C. D. & Ng, A. Dynamic pooling and unfolding recursive autoencoders for paraphrase detection. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Shawe-Taylor, J. et al.) (2011)

He, R., Ravula, A., Kanagal, B. & Ainslie, J. Realformer: Transformer likes residual attention. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 (eds Zhong, C., et al.) 929–943 (Assoc. Comp. Linguistics, 2021).

Tay, Y. et al. Charformer: fast character transformers via gradient-based subword tokenization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations https://openreview.net/forum?id=JtBRnrlOEFN (2022).

Kane, H., Kocyigit, Y., Abdalla, A., Ajanoh, P. & Coulibali, M. Towards neural similarity evaluators. In Workshop on Document Intelligence at the 32nd conference on Neural Information Processing (2019).

Lebret, R., Grangier, D. & Auli, M. Neural text generation from structured data with application to the biography domain. In Proc. 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (eds Su, J. et al.) 1203–1213 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2016).

Kossen, J., jlko/semantic_uncertainty: Initial release v.1.0.0. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10964366 (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank G. Irving, K. Perlin, J. Richens, L. Rimell and M. Turpin for their comments or discussion related to this work. We thank K. Handa for his help with the human evaluation of our automated accuracy assessment. We thank F. Bickford Smith and L. Melo for their code review. Y.G. is supported by a Turing AI Fellowship funded by the UK government’s Office for AI, through UK Research and Innovation (grant reference EP/V030302/1), and delivered by the Alan Turing Institute.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Sebastian Farquhar, Jannik Kossen, Lorenz Kuhn

Authors and Affiliations

OATML, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Sebastian Farquhar, Jannik Kossen, Lorenz Kuhn & Yarin Gal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.F. led the work from conception to completion and proposed using bidirectional entailment to cluster generations as a way of computing entropy in LLMs. He wrote the main text, most of the Methods and Supplementary Information and prepared most of the figures. J.K. improved the mathematical formalization of semantic entropy; led the extension of semantic entropy to sentence- and paragraph-length generations; wrote the code for, and carried out, all the experiments and evaluations; wrote much of the Methods and Supplementary Information and prepared drafts of many figures; and gave critical feedback on the main text. L.K. developed the initial mathematical formalization of semantic entropy; wrote code for, and carried out, the initial experiments around semantic entropy and its variants which demonstrated the promise of the idea and helped narrow down possible research avenues to explore; and gave critical feedback on the main text. Y.G. ideated the project, proposing the idea to differentiate semantic and syntactic diversity as a tool for detecting hallucinations, provided high-level guidance on the research and gave critical feedback on the main text; he runs the research laboratory in which the work was carried out.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Farquhar .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

S.F. is currently employed by Google DeepMind and L.K. by OpenAI. For both, this paper was written under their University of Oxford affiliation. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature thanks Mirella Lapata and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 algorithm outline for bidirectional entailment clustering..

Given a set of outputs in response to a context, the bidirectional entailment answer returns a set of sets of outputs which have been classified as sharing a meaning.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Notes 1–7, Figs. 1–10, Tables 1–4 and references. Includes, worked example for semantic entropy calculation, discussion of limitations and computational cost of entailment clustering, ablation of entailment prediction and clustering methods, discussion of automated accuracy assessment, unaggregated results for sentence-length generations and further results for short-phrase generations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Farquhar, S., Kossen, J., Kuhn, L. et al. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nature 630 , 625–630 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07421-0

Download citation

Received : 17 July 2023

Accepted : 12 April 2024

Published : 19 June 2024

Issue Date : 20 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07421-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Research on user default prediction algorithm based on adjusted homogenous and heterogeneous ensemble learning.

Share and Cite

Lu, Y.; Wang, K.; Sun, H.; Qu, H.; Chen, J.; Liu, W.; Chang, C. Research on User Default Prediction Algorithm Based on Adjusted Homogenous and Heterogeneous Ensemble Learning. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 5711. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135711

Lu Y, Wang K, Sun H, Qu H, Chen J, Liu W, Chang C. Research on User Default Prediction Algorithm Based on Adjusted Homogenous and Heterogeneous Ensemble Learning. Applied Sciences . 2024; 14(13):5711. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135711

Lu, Yao, Kui Wang, Hui Sun, Hanwen Qu, Jiajia Chen, Wei Liu, and Chenjie Chang. 2024. "Research on User Default Prediction Algorithm Based on Adjusted Homogenous and Heterogeneous Ensemble Learning" Applied Sciences 14, no. 13: 5711. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135711

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Advanced Search

An integrated intrusion detection framework based on subspace clustering and ensemble learning

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, an intrusion detection system based on stacked ensemble learning for iot network.

As Internet of Things (IoT) technology advances rapidly, the need for security measures in this domain intensifies, mainly due to the inherent computational resource constraints and production cost limitations of IoT devices. These factors make ...

A framework of cooperating intrusion detection based on clustering analysis and expert system

This paper first analyzes and compares misuse detection and anomaly detection. Misuse detection can't detect new or unknown intrusion, while anomaly detection has the shortcoming on detection rate and false alarm rate. In order to overcome their ...

Cluster Based Ensemble Classification for Intrusion Detection System

Network security is a challenging task, as there is a tremendous growth of network -based services and sharing of sensitive information on the network. Intrusion throws a serious risk in the network. Even though many hardening systems are developed ...

Information

Published in.

Pergamon Press, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Author tags.

• Intrusion detection
• IoT networks
• Ensemble learning
• Subspace clustering
• Feature selection
• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.