MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923329249 · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2019.2900046

A New Timing Error Cost Function for Binary Time Series Prediction

2019· article· en· W2923329249 on OpenAlexafffund
François Rivest, Richard Kohar

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaQueen's University
FundersCollège militaire royal du Canada
KeywordsDynamic time warpingComputer scienceTime seriesGradient descentAlgorithmBinary numberSeries (stratigraphy)Differentiable functionFunction (biology)Artificial neural networkMean squared errorEvent (particle physics)Artificial intelligenceRecurrent neural networkMachine learningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to make predictions is central to the artificial intelligence problem. While machine learning algorithms have difficulty in learning to predict events with hundreds of time-step dependencies, animals can learn event timing within tens of trials across a broad spectrum of time scales. This suggests strongly a need for new perspectives on the forecasting problem. This paper focuses on binary time series that can be predicted within some temporal precision. We demonstrate that the sum of squared errors (SSE) calculated at every time step is not appropriate for this problem. Next, we look at the advantages and shortcomings of using a dynamic time warping (DTW) cost function. Then, we propose the squared timing error (STE) that uses DTW on the event space and applies SSE on the timing error instead of at each time step. We evaluate all three cost functions on different types of timing errors, such as phase shift, warping, and missing events, on synthetic and real-world binary time series (heartbeats, finance, and music). The results show that STE provides more information about timing error, is differentiable, and can be computed online efficiently. Finally, we devise a gradient descent algorithm for STE on a simplified recurrent neural network. We then compare the performance of the STE-based algorithm to SSE- and logit-based gradient descent algorithms on the same network architecture. The results in real-world binary time series show that the STE algorithm generally outperforms all the other cost functions considered.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning SystemsSame topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207