Using multi-scale histograms to answer pattern existence and shape match queries over time series data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Similarity-based querying of time series data can be categorized as pattern existence queries and shape match queries. Pattern existence queries find the time series data with certain patterns while shape match queries look for the time series data that have similar movement shapes. Existing proposals address one of these or the other. In this paper, we propose multi-scale time series histograms that can be used to answer both types of queries, thus offering users more flexibility. Multiple histogram levels allow querying at various precision levels. Most importantly, the distances of time series histograms at lower scale are lower bounds of the distances at higher scale, which guarantees that no false dismissals will be introduced when a multi-step filtering process is used in answering shape match queries. We further propose to use averages of time series histograms to reduce the dimensionality and avoid computing the distances of full time series histograms. The experimental results show that multi-scale histograms can effectively find the patterns in time series data and answer shape match queries, even when the data contain noise, time shifting and scaling, or amplitude shifting and scaling.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".