rfBLT: Random Feature Bayesian Lasso Takens Model for time series forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time series prediction is challenging due to our limited understanding of the underlying dynamics. Conventional models such as ARIMA and Holt's linear trend model experience difficulty in identifying nonlinear patterns in time series. In contrast, machine learning models excel at learning complex patterns and handling high-dimensional data; however, they are unable to quantify the uncertainty associated with their predictions, as statistical models do. To overcome these drawbacks, we propose Random Feature Bayesian Lasso Takens (rfBLT) for forecasting time series data. This non-parametric model captures the underlying system via the Takens' theorem and measures the degree of uncertainty with credible intervals. This is achieved by projecting delay embeddings into a higher-dimensional space via random features and applying regularization within the Bayesian framework to identify relevant terms. Our results demonstrate that the rfBLT method is comparable to traditional statistical models on simulated data, while significantly outperforming both conventional and machine learning models when evaluated on real-world data. The proposed algorithm is implemented in an R package, rfBLT.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".