Biased Resampling Strategies for Imbalanced Spatio-Temporal Forecasting
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
Extreme and rare events, such as abnormal spikes in air pollution or weather conditions can have serious repercussions. Many of these sorts of events develop from spatio-temporal processes, and accurate predictions are a most valuable tool in addressing their impact, in a timely manner. In this paper, we propose a new set of resampling strategies for imbalanced spatio-temporal forecasting tasks, by introducing bias into formerly random processes. This spatio-temporal bias includes a hyper-parameter that regulates the relative importance of the temporal and spatial dimensions in the selection of observations during under-or over-sampling. We test and compare our proposals against standard versions of the strategies on 10 different geo-referenced numeric time series, using 3 distinct off-the-shelf learning algorithms. Experimental results show that our proposal provides an advantage over random resampling strategies in imbalanced spatio-temporal forecasting tasks. Additionally, we also find that valuing an observation's recency is more useful when over-sampling; while valuing its spatial distance to other cases with extreme values is more beneficial when under-sampling.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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