Full Model Selection Problem and Pipelines for Time-Series Databases: Contrasting Population-Based and Single-point Search Metaheuristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing production of temporal data, especially time series, has motivated valuable knowledge to understand phenomena or for decision-making. As the availability of algorithms to process data increases, the problem of choosing the most suitable one becomes more prevalent. This problem is known as the Full Model Selection (FMS), which consists of finding an appropriate set of methods and hyperparameter optimization to perform a set of structured tasks as a pipeline. Multiple approaches (based on metaheuristics) have been proposed to address this problem, in which automated pipelines are built for multitasking without much dependence on user knowledge. Most of these approaches propose pipelines to process non-temporal data. Motivated by this, this paper proposes an architecture for finding optimized pipelines for time-series tasks. A micro-differential evolution algorithm (µ-DE, population-based metaheuristic) with different variants and continuous encoding is compared against a local search (LS, single-point search) with binary and mixed encoding. Multiple experiments are carried out to analyze the performance of each approach in ten time-series databases. The final results suggest that the µ-DE approach with rand/1/bin variant is useful to find competitive pipelines without sacrificing performance, whereas a local search with binary encoding achieves the lowest misclassification error rates but has the highest computational cost during the training stage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".