pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.01602 · v3 · pith:BUSBLLBZnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.IT· math.IT

Estimating Mutual Information between Time Series and Temporal Event Sequences Across Diverse Analysis Tasks

Haoji Hu , Huaqing Mao , Yijun Lin , Xiaowei Jia , Jinwei Zhou , Minoh Jeong , Yao-Yi Chiang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 15:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.ITmath.IT
keywords mutual information estimationtime seriesevent sequencesnonparametric methodscausality analysisfeature selectiontemporal data miningdiscrete-continuous dependence
0
0 comments X

The pith

A nonparametric estimator directly measures mutual information between time series and event sequences.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes a nonparametric mutual information estimator that operates directly on paired continuous time series and discrete event sequences. It models the continuous-discrete duality to sidestep quantization and repeated-value artifacts, then applies latent event clustering to reduce bias from co-occurrence and redundancy. The method is evaluated on four tasks including time-delayed causality analysis, repetition discovery, covariate selection for forecasting, and feature selection for classification. Experiments on synthetic and real data indicate more accurate and stable results than transformation-dependent alternatives. A reader would care because the approach supplies a single, general-purpose dependence measure for mixed temporal data types.

Core claim

The estimator directly measures dependence between time series and event sequences by modeling their continuous-discrete duality and applying latent event clustering to reduce bias, yielding a framework that bridges discrete and continuous mutual information without transformations or discretization.

What carries the argument

Nonparametric mutual information estimator that models continuous-discrete duality and latent event clustering to avoid quantization and redundancy artifacts.

If this is right

  • Enables accurate discrete-continuous time-delayed mutual information for causality analysis.
  • Supports global and local temporal repetition discovery across heterogeneous sequences.
  • Improves discrete covariate selection for time series forecasting.
  • Enhances continuous feature selection for classification on temporal data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The estimator could extend to dependence measurement in non-temporal mixed data such as spatial and categorical variables.
  • It may enable direct strength comparisons of dependence across different datasets without task-specific parameter choices.
  • Integration with forecasting or classification pipelines could be tested for end-to-end performance gains.

Load-bearing premise

The latent event clustering strategy reduces bias from event co-occurrence and redundancy without introducing new artifacts or requiring domain-specific tuning.

What would settle it

On synthetic data with known ground-truth dependence and high event redundancy, the estimator fails to recover mutual information values more accurately than existing discretization-based methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.01602 by Haoji Hu, Huaqing Mao, Jinwei Zhou, Minoh Jeong, Xiaowei Jia, Yao-Yi Chiang, Yijun Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Dependence analysis across temporal data types. (a) Pearson correlation between two time series, where each time step is a continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Global seasonality. (b) Local repeated pattern on Wed. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Daily traffic volume in Minneapolis (blue) with weekly peri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of discrete covariate identification for forecast [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Gaussian distributions for time series. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distance Threshold Sensitivity • Open - 0 = store is closed, 1 = store is open. • DayOfWeek - an indicator for the day of a week. • Promo - indicates if a store is running a promo. • StateHoliday - indicates a state holiday. Normally, all stores are closed on state holidays. Note that all schools are closed on public holidays and weekends. a = public holiday, b = Easter holiday, c = Christmas, 0 = None. Fo… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A feature selection example for classifying if a student [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Pairwise dependence measures such as correlation and causality are fundamental to temporal data mining, yet there is still no principled and robust way to quantify dependence between heterogeneous data types, especially between continuous time series and discrete temporal event sequences. Existing approaches rely on ad hoc transformations or mutual-information estimators that are highly sensitive to quantization, repeated values, and event redundancy, leading to biased or unstable results in practice. We propose a nonparametric mutual information estimator that directly measures the dependence between time series and event sequences without data transformation, learning, or ad hoc discretization. Our method models the continuous-discrete duality of real-world time series to handle quantization and repeated-value artifacts and introduces a latent event clustering strategy to mitigate bias from event co-occurrence and redundancy. Together, these yield a robust and unified framework that bridges discrete and continuous mutual information. We evaluate the proposed estimator on four representative tasks: discrete-continuous time-delayed mutual information for causality analysis, global and local temporal repetition discovery, discrete covariate selection for time series forecasting, and continuous feature selection for classification. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets show consistent improvements over existing methods in accuracy, robustness, and interpretability, positioning our approach as a general-purpose dependence operator for heterogeneous temporal data, similar to Pearson correlation for homogeneous time series. Code available at: https://github.com/HaojiHu/Multimodal-Temporal-Data-Quantification

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a nonparametric mutual information estimator for quantifying dependence between continuous time series and discrete temporal event sequences. It models the continuous-discrete duality to address quantization and repeated-value issues and introduces a latent event clustering strategy to reduce bias from event co-occurrence and redundancy. The method is evaluated on four tasks—time-delayed MI for causality, global/local repetition discovery, discrete covariate selection for forecasting, and continuous feature selection for classification—showing improved accuracy, robustness, and interpretability over baselines on synthetic and real data, with code released.

Significance. If the estimator is verifiably nonparametric, free of ad hoc discretization or task-specific tuning, and the clustering strategy demonstrably mitigates redundancy bias without introducing new artifacts, the work would provide a general-purpose dependence operator for heterogeneous temporal data analogous to Pearson correlation, with direct applicability to causality, forecasting, and feature selection tasks.

major comments (2)
  1. [Method description (latent event clustering)] The central claim that the latent event clustering strategy mitigates co-occurrence/redundancy bias without new artifacts or domain-specific tuning (as required for the nonparametric guarantee across the four tasks) is not supported by any derivation, objective function, inference procedure, or sensitivity analysis for the number of clusters K. This is load-bearing for the 'no transformation, no learning, no ad hoc discretization' positioning.
  2. [Method section] No equations or algorithmic pseudocode are provided for the continuous-discrete duality modeling or the overall MI estimator, preventing verification that the estimator is truly direct and nonparametric rather than implicitly relying on post-hoc choices that could affect results on the causality, repetition, and selection tasks.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract and introduction would benefit from explicit comparison to prior MI estimators for mixed data types (e.g., those using kernel density or copulas) to clarify novelty.
  2. [Experiments] Figure captions and experimental tables should include error bars or statistical significance tests for the reported improvements to strengthen the robustness claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on the method description. The comments correctly identify areas where additional detail is required to support the nonparametric claims, and we will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method description (latent event clustering)] The central claim that the latent event clustering strategy mitigates co-occurrence/redundancy bias without new artifacts or domain-specific tuning (as required for the nonparametric guarantee across the four tasks) is not supported by any derivation, objective function, inference procedure, or sensitivity analysis for the number of clusters K. This is load-bearing for the 'no transformation, no learning, no ad hoc discretization' positioning.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript requires additional support for the latent event clustering claims. In the revision we will add a derivation showing how clustering reduces co-occurrence and redundancy bias, the explicit objective function and inference procedure, and a sensitivity analysis over K. These additions will demonstrate that the strategy operates without domain-specific tuning or new artifacts while preserving the nonparametric character across the four tasks. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method section] No equations or algorithmic pseudocode are provided for the continuous-discrete duality modeling or the overall MI estimator, preventing verification that the estimator is truly direct and nonparametric rather than implicitly relying on post-hoc choices that could affect results on the causality, repetition, and selection tasks.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the method section lacks explicit equations and pseudocode. The revised manuscript will include the full mathematical formulation of the continuous-discrete duality modeling, the overall MI estimator, and algorithmic pseudocode. This will allow direct verification that the estimator is nonparametric and does not depend on post-hoc choices affecting the reported tasks. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: nonparametric estimator presented without self-referential fitting or load-bearing self-citations

full rationale

The abstract and description present a nonparametric MI estimator that directly measures dependence between time series and event sequences without transformation, learning, or discretization. It models continuous-discrete duality and introduces latent event clustering to mitigate bias, but no equations, derivation steps, or self-citations are shown that would reduce the central claim to fitted inputs by construction or rename known results. The four-task evaluation is framed as empirical validation on synthetic and real-world data rather than tautological prediction. No patterns matching self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or uniqueness-imported-from-authors are identifiable from the provided text. The method is positioned as a general-purpose operator with code available externally, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only view supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the method is described as nonparametric and direct.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5802 in / 1127 out tokens · 15951 ms · 2026-06-28T15:51:38.506372+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Hirotugu Akaike. 1976. Canonical correlation analysis of time series and the use of an information criterion. InMathematics in science and engineering. Vol. 126. Elsevier, 27–96

    1976

  2. [2]

    Abdul Fatir Ansari, Oleksandr Shchur, Jaris Küken, Andreas Auer, Boran Han, Pedro Mercado, Syama Sundar Rangapuram, Huibin Shen, Lorenzo Stella, Xiyuan Zhang, et al. 2025. Chronos-2: From univariate to universal forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15821(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Mohamed Ishmael Belghazi, Aristide Baratin, Sai Rajeshwar, Sherjil Ozair, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Devon Hjelm. 2018. Mutual information neural estimation. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 531–540

    2018

  4. [4]

    Miguel AG Belmonte, Gary Koop, and Dimitris Korobilis. 2014. Hierarchical shrinkage in time-varying parameter models.Journal of Forecasting33, 1 (2014), 80–94

    2014

  5. [5]

    Moïse Blanchard, Adam Quinn Jaffe, and Nikita Zhivotovskiy. 2025. Consistency and Inconsistency in𝐾-Means Clustering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06226(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    George EP Box, Gwilym M Jenkins, Gregory C Reinsel, and Greta M Ljung. 2015. Time series analysis: forecasting and control. John Wiley & Sons

    2015

  7. [7]

    2001.Time series: data analysis and theory

    David R Brillinger. 2001.Time series: data analysis and theory. SIAM

    2001

  8. [8]

    Jiawei Chen and Chunhui Zhao. 2024. Addressing spatial-temporal heterogeneity: General mixed time series analysis via latent continuity recovery and alignment. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 17910–17946

    2024

  9. [9]

    Lakshmi P Chitta, Andrei N Zhukov, David Berghmans, Hardi Peter, Susanna Parenti, Sudip Mandal, Regina Aznar Cuadrado, Udo Schühle, Luca Teriaca, Frédéric Auchère, et al. 2023. Picoflare jets power the solar wind emerging from a coronal hole on the Sun.Science381, 6660 (2023), 867–872

    2023

  10. [10]

    Kenneth Church and Patrick Hanks. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography.Computational linguistics16, 1 (1990), 22–29

    1990

  11. [11]

    Robert B Cleveland, William S Cleveland, Jean E McRae, Irma Terpenning, et al

  12. [12]

    STL: A seasonal-trend decomposition.J. Off. Stat6, 1 (1990), 3–73

    1990

  13. [13]

    Abhimanyu Das, Weihao Kong, Rajat Sen, and Yichen Zhou. 2024. A decoder- only foundation model for time-series forecasting. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  14. [14]

    James Dougherty, Ron Kohavi, and Mehran Sahami. 1995. Supervised and unsu- pervised discretization of continuous features. InMachine learning proceedings

    1995

  15. [15]

    Weihao Gao, Sreeram Kannan, Sewoong Oh, and Pramod Viswanath. 2017. Esti- mating mutual information for discrete-continuous mixtures.Advances in neural information processing systems30 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    2024.Performance Evaluation of Different Detection Technologies for Signalized Intersections in Minnesota

    Malcolm Grossman, Yuankun Jiao, Haoji Hu, John Hourdos, Yao-Yi Chiang, et al. 2024.Performance Evaluation of Different Detection Technologies for Signalized Intersections in Minnesota. Technical Report. Minnesota. Department of Trans- portation

    2024

  17. [17]

    Isabelle Guyon and Andre Elisseeff. 2003. An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection.Journal of Machine Learning Research(2003), 1157–1182

    2003

  18. [18]

    Edwin T Jaynes. 1968. Prior probabilities.IEEE Transactions on systems science and cybernetics4, 3 (1968), 227–241

    1968

  19. [19]

    Lyudmyla F Kozachenko and Nikolai N Leonenko. 1987. Sample estimate of the entropy of a random vector.Problemy Peredachi Informatsii23, 2 (1987), 9–16

    1987

  20. [20]

    Alexander Kraskov, Harald Stögbauer, and Peter Grassberger. 2004. Estimating mutual information.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics69, 6 (2004), 066138

    2004

  21. [21]

    2013.Statistical Physics: Volume 5

    Lev Davidovich Landau and Evgenii Mikhailovich Lifshitz. 2013.Statistical Physics: Volume 5. Vol. 5. Elsevier

    2013

  22. [22]

    Oliver F Lange and Helmut Grubmüller. 2006. Generalized correlation for biomolecular dynamics.Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics62, 4 (2006), 1053–1061

    2006

  23. [23]

    Jundong Li, Kewei Cheng, Suhang Wang, Fred Morstatter, Robert P Trevino, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. 2018. Feature selection: A data perspective.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)50, 6 (2018), 94

    2018

  24. [24]

    Huan Liu, Farhad Hussain, Chew Lim Tan, and Manoranjan Dash. 2002. Dis- cretization: An enabling technique.Data mining and knowledge discovery6 (2002), 393–423

    2002

  25. [25]

    Chen Luo, Jian-Guang Lou, Qingwei Lin, Qiang Fu, Rui Ding, Dongmei Zhang, and Zhe Wang. 2014. Correlating events with time series for incident diagnosis. InProceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 1583–1592

    2014

  26. [26]

    Jessica Magallanes, Tony Stone, Paul D Morris, Suzanne Mason, Steven Wood, and Maria-Cruz Villa-Uriol. 2021. Sequen-c: A multilevel overview of temporal event sequences.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics28, 1 KDD ’26, August 09–13, 2026, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea Haoji Hu et al. (2021), 901–911

    2021

  27. [27]

    Daniel Nagel, Georg Diez, and Gerhard Stock. 2024. Accurate estimation of the normalized mutual information of multidimensional data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04980(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, Jake Vanderplas, Alexandre Passos, David Cournapeau, Matthieu Brucher, Matthieu Perrot, and Édouard Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python.Journal of Machine Learning Re...

    2011

  29. [29]

    Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Gleb Gusev, Aleksandr Vorobev, Anna Veronika Doro- gush, and Andrey Gulin. 2018. CatBoost: unbiased boosting with categorical features.Advances in neural information processing systems31 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    Brian C Ross. 2014. Mutual information between discrete and continuous data sets.PloS one9, 2 (2014), e87357

    2014

  31. [31]

    David Salinas, Valentin Flunkert, Jan Gasthaus, and Tim Januschowski. 2020. DeepAR: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks.Inter- national journal of forecasting36, 3 (2020), 1181–1191

    2020

  32. [32]

    Janett Walters-Williams and Yan Li. 2009. Estimation of mutual information: A survey. InRough Sets and Knowledge Technology: 4th International Conference, RSKT 2009, Gold Coast, Australia, July 14-16, 2009. Proceedings 4. Springer, 389– 396. A Proof of the Measurement’s Non-negativity The classical Shannon mutual information (i.e., the mutual informa- tio...

    work page arXiv 2009