MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414908411 · doi:10.1109/tkde.2025.3618763

Breaking Information Granularity Heterogeneity: A Mutual Information-Inspired Causal Discovery Framework for Multi-Rate Time Series

2025· article· en· W4414908411 on OpenAlexaff
Chunhui Zhao, Biao Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGranularitySampling (signal processing)Key (lock)Time seriesMutual informationSeries (stratigraphy)EncoderInformation theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Causal discovery in multi-rate time series encounters greater challenges compared to regular time series. This stems from a potential problem that has not been noticed and explored in existing studies:information granularity heterogeneity, which refers to the natural difference in information granularity between fast sampling rate data (high information granularity) and slow sampling rate data (low information granularity). Such an imbalance in information granularity can hinder forecasting relationships modeling and induce biased causal learning. Therefore, we propose aMutual Information-iNspired causalDiscovery framework (MIND), aiming to derive rate-agnostic features with consistent information granularity to alleviate information granularity heterogeneity problem. Technically, MIND comprises Stage 1 (pre-training) and Stage 2 (fine-tuning and causal discovery). In Stage 1, empowered by pseudo-slow sampling rate data (generated through the interleaved down sampling strategy) and mutual information, we can eliminate the influence of sampling rates and drive rate-aware encoders (RAEs) to sense key information (i.e., rate-agnostic) that remains unchanged across varying sampling rates. In Stage 2, the well-trained RAEs can extract rate-agnostic features from real multi-rate time series, thus facilitating effective forecasting relationships modeling and yield accurate causal discovery. Empirically, MIND realizes superior performance on various multi-rate scenarios, including four simulation datasets and one real-world dataset.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data EngineeringSame topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207