Should We Reconsider RNNs for Time-Series Forecasting?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: In recent years, Transformer-based models have dominated the time-series forecasting domain, overshadowing recurrent neural networks (RNNs) such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU). While Transformers demonstrate superior performance, their high computational cost limits their practical application in resource-constrained settings. (2) Methods: In this paper, we reconsider RNNs—specifically the GRU architecture—as an efficient alternative to time-series forecasting by leveraging this architecture’s sequential representation capability to capture cross-channel dependencies effectively. Our model also utilizes a feed-forward layer right after the GRU module to represent temporal dependencies, and aggregates it with the GRU layers to predict future values of a given time-series. (3) Results and conclusions: Our extensive experiments conducted on different real-world datasets show that our inverted GRU (iGRU) model achieves promising results in terms of error metrics and memory efficiency, challenging or surpassing state-of-the-art models on various benchmarks.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".