Generalizing across Temporal Domains with Koopman Operators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of domain generalization, the task of constructing a predictive model capable of generalizing to a target domain without access to target data remains challenging. This problem becomes further complicated when considering evolving dynamics between domains. While various approaches have been proposed to address this issue, a comprehensive understanding of the underlying generalization theory is still lacking. In this study, we contribute novel theoretic results that aligning conditional distribution leads to the reduction of generalization bounds. Our analysis serves as a key motivation for solving the Temporal Domain Generalization (TDG) problem through the application of Koopman Neural Operators, resulting in Temporal Koopman Networks (TKNets). By employing Koopman Neural Operators, we effectively address the time-evolving distributions encountered in TDG using the principles of Koopman theory, where measurement functions are sought to establish linear transition relations between evolving domains. Through empirical evaluations conducted on synthetic and real-world datasets, we validate the effectiveness of our proposed approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.016 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".