An experimental evaluation of similarity measures for uncertain time series
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertain time series analysis is important in applications such as wireless sensor networks and location-based services. This has been the subject of some recent studies, and a number of solution techniques have been proposed for similarity search problems. We classify the proposed similarity measures into deterministic, which returns a value, and probabilistic, which returns a random variable. By means of our classification, we present an overview of the proposed similarity measures and evaluate them experimentally. We conducted a comprehensive performance evaluation of these techniques through numerous experiments using the well-known real-life UCR benchmark data. As the computational complexity of some of these similarity measures was very high, we devised an effective sampling-based heuristic method to complete the experiments which could not be done before. The results of our experimental evaluation and comparison provide useful insights and guidelines for researchers and practitioners in similarity search and analysis of uncertain time series data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it