On Optimal Multiple Changepoint Algorithms for Large Data
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
There is an increasing need for algorithms that can accurately detect changepoints in long time-series, or equivalent, data. Many common approaches to detecting changepoints, for example based on penalised likelihood or minimum description length, can be formulated in terms of minimising a cost over segmentations. Dynamic programming methods exist to solve this minimisation problem exactly, but these tend to scale at least quadratically in the length of the time-series. Algorithms, such as Binary Segmentation, exist that have a computational cost that is close to linear in the length of the time-series, but these are not guaranteed to find the optimal segmentation. Recently pruning ideas have been suggested that can speed up the dynamic programming algorithms, whilst still being guaranteed to find true minimum of the cost function. Here we extend these pruning methods, and introduce two new algorithms for segmenting data, FPOP and SNIP. Empirical results show that FPOP is substantially faster than existing dynamic programming methods, and unlike the existing methods its computational efficiency is robust to the number of changepoints in the data. We evaluate the method at detecting Copy Number Variations and observe that FPOP has a computational cost that is competitive with that of Binary Segmentation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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