MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949449669 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2019.2923982

A Review of Deep Learning Models for Time Series Prediction

2019· review· en· W2949449669 on OpenAlexaff
Zhongyang Han, Jun Zhao, Henry Leung, King Ma, Wei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDeep learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningDiscriminative modelCurse of dimensionalityTime seriesCategorizationGenerative grammarAbstractionProcess (computing)Series (stratigraphy)Generative model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to approximate the underlying process of temporal data, time series prediction has been a hot research topic for decades. Developing predictive models plays an important role in interpreting complex real-world elements. With the sharp increase in the quantity and dimensionality of data, new challenges, such as extracting deep features and recognizing deep latent patterns, have emerged, demanding novel approaches and effective solutions. Deep learning, composed of multiple processing layers to learn with multiple levels of abstraction, is, now, commonly deployed for overcoming the newly arisen difficulties. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art developments in deep learning for time series prediction. Based on modeling for the perspective of conditional or joint probability, we categorize them into discriminative, generative, and hybrids models. Experiments are implemented on both benchmarks and real-world data to elaborate the performance of the representative deep learning-based prediction methods. Finally, we conclude with comments on possible future perspectives and ongoing challenges with time series prediction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations488
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207