A Review of Deep Learning Models for Time Series Prediction
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
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.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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