Towards Diverse Perspective Learning with Selection over Multiple Temporal Poolings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Time Series Classification (TSC), temporal pooling methods that consider sequential information have been proposed. However, we found that each temporal pooling has a distinct mechanism, and can perform better or worse depending on time series data. We term this fixed pooling mechanism a single perspective of temporal poolings. In this paper, we propose a novel temporal pooling method with diverse perspective learning: Selection over Multiple Temporal Poolings (SoM-TP). SoM-TP dynamically selects the optimal temporal pooling among multiple methods for each data by attention. The dynamic pooling selection is motivated by the ensemble concept of Multiple Choice Learning (MCL), which selects the best among multiple outputs. The pooling selection by SoM-TP's attention enables a non-iterative pooling ensemble within a single classifier. Additionally, we define a perspective loss and Diverse Perspective Learning Network (DPLN). The loss works as a regularizer to reflect all the pooling perspectives from DPLN. Our perspective analysis using Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP) reveals the limitation of a single perspective and ultimately demonstrates diverse perspective learning of SoM-TP. We also show that SoM-TP outperforms CNN models based on other temporal poolings and state-of-the-art models in TSC with extensive UCR/UEA repositories.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".