MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Raster: Representation Learning for Time Series Classification using Scatter Score and Randomized Threshold Exceedance Rate

2023· article· en· W4387870831 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Keshavarzian, Shahrokh Valaee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMetric (unit)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningRepresentation (politics)Deep learningTask (project management)Raster graphicsSeries (stratigraphy)Performance metricRandomized experimentFeature learningTime seriesData miningStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time series classification is a fundamental task in many domains such as finance, healthcare, and manufacturing. Traditional machine learning techniques are limited in their ability to deal with the temporal nature of time series data, making representation learning an effective approach. Randomized machine learning is gaining interest as many cases it can outperform deep learning. However, it often requires many features, which can be an issue with high-dimensional training data and low-sample sizes. To address this issue, we propose a novel and efficient approach that utilizes a new and fast metric to evaluate features, called the Scatter Score (SS), and a new temporal-aware down-sampling strategy, called randomized threshold exceedance rate (rTER). Our method achieves significant improvements in classification performance compared to state-of-the-art methods such as ROCKET, miniROCKET, ResNet, and InceptionTime, as demonstrated on 30 different datasets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207