Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Learning Interpretable Differentiable Logic Networks for Time-Series Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Differentiable logic networks, applied to time-series classification via vectorized Catch22/TSFresh features, keep competitive accuracy, low inference cost, and transparent Boolean decision logic across 51 univariate benchmarks.

desk verdict We don't actually have this paper—only the abstract and a different full text—so the honest verdict is unverdictable rather than pass/fail. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17512 v1 pith:D557KJ35 submitted 2025-08-24 cs.LG

Chang Yue , Niraj K. Jha This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords differentiablelogicnetworkstime-seriesclassificationinterpretablemachinelearningCatch22featuresTSFreshjointhyperparametersearchunivariatebenchmarksBooleandecision
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that differentiable logic networks (DLNs) can be carried over to time-series classification for the first time without losing their three advertised strengths: competitive accuracy, cheap inference, and readable decision logic. To bridge sequential data and logic networks, the authors convert each univariate time series into a fixed-length feature vector using the Catch22 and TSFresh extractors, then classify those vectors with a DLN. They also depart from earlier DLN studies by folding all training-configuration choices into a single joint hyperparameter search, and they analyze the distribution of the selected configurations to learn how DLN training behaves. Across 51 publicly available univariate benchmarks, the approach reportedly matches the accuracy of established time-series classifiers while keeping decisions transparent. If right, this offers an interpretable, low-cost alternative to opaque deep classifiers in time-series domains where decisions need to be auditable.

What carries the argument

Differentiable logic networks (DLNs) carry the argument: they are networks whose units implement logic operations in a way that can be trained by gradient descent, so the model learns interpretable Boolean decision logic rather than opaque weights. The paper's adaptation mechanism is the feature-vector bridge: Catch22 and TSFresh convert each time series into a vectorized form suitable for DLN classification, replacing sequential structure with tabular-style features. The third piece is the joint hyperparameter search space, which integrates the training configurations that prior DLN studies varied in isolation so that the search selects jointly optimal settings; analyzing which settings are

What would settle it

Take a benchmark whose labels depend on the ordering of short segments, construct pairs of series that swap two internal windows so the global Catch22/TSFresh statistics barely change but the class flips, and measure DLN accuracy on the modified series; if accuracy does not drop while a raw-signal classifier's does, the representation is discarding the discriminative structure. A second test: rerun the joint hyperparameter search on held-out benchmarks with fresh random seeds and check whether the selected-configuration distribution shifts — if it does, the reported training-dynamics insight m

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central finding is that classification DLNs retain their core strengths when moved from tabular data into time-series classification: they deliver competitive accuracy, retain low inference cost, and provide transparent, interpretable decision logic. The enabling move is representational: rather than feeding raw signals to the network, the paper turns each series into a vectorized form using Catch22 and TSFresh features, so the DLN sees a tabular-like input and can be trained with its usual logic-learning machinery. A second methodological contribution is the joint hyperparameter search, which selects all training configurations together instead of fixing a conf

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that reducing each time series to a fixed set of Catch22 and TSFresh features keeps enough discriminative temporal information for the logic network to stay competitive with state-of-the-art time-series classifiers — if the signal lives in temporal detail those features discard, the accuracy claim is capped by the representation no matter how good the network is.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Time-series classification gains a candidate model that is accurate, cheap at inference, and whose decisions can be inspected as logic rules — useful where auditability matters, such as medical or industrial monitoring.
  • Because inference is logic-based, deployment is lighter than with deep sequence models, a direct corollary of the claimed retention of low inference cost.
  • The joint hyperparameter search suggests that DLN configuration choices interact non-trivially, so future applications of DLNs should search configurations jointly rather than tuning each in isolation and relying on ablation.
  • If the learned logic is meaningful, practitioners could read the rule for a class and see which Catch22/TSFresh features trigger it, connecting the classifier's decision to domain knowledge about the signal.
  • The 51-benchmark evaluation provides a reference point for feature-based interpretable time-series classifiers on standard univariate datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The accuracy ceiling is set by the feature representation, not by the DLN; a testable extension is to feed the same DLN order-sensitive features (such as windowed statistics) on a benchmark where temporal ordering matters, to see where the competitive-accuracy claim starts to bend.
  • The claimed insight into DLN training dynamics depends on the selected-hyperparameter distribution being stable across runs; a replication on a few benchmarks with multiple seeds would show whether the jointly optimal settings are robust or benchmark-specific.
  • Because Catch22 and TSFresh features are largely summaries of a single series, the method likely underperforms where fine temporal order is decisive (transient spikes, phase shifts); the paper's stated scope of univariate datasets leaves this untested.
  • The interpretability claim could be pushed beyond what the paper does: extracting the learned logic rules for a specific benchmark and checking whether the chosen features match its known signal characteristics would test whether 'readable' also means 'trustworthy.'
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The target manuscript (arXiv:2508.17512) is available to this reviewer only as an abstract. It proposes applying differentiable logic networks (DLNs) to univariate time-series classification for the first time, using Catch22 and TSFresh feature vectors as a feature-based representation. The abstract reports that hyperparameters were integrated into a joint search space, that the distribution of selected configurations was analyzed, and that evaluation on 51 public benchmarks confirms that DLNs deliver 'competitive accuracy,' low inference cost, and transparent, interpretable decision logic. The full text supplied in the review packet, however, is a different paper (arXiv:2508.17511, 'School of Reward Hacks'), not the target manuscript. Consequently, none of the target paper's methods, tables, baseline definitions, error bars, or interpretability analyses are present in the review packet. The stress-test concern therefore lands: the central claims cannot be verified from the available evidence.

Significance. If the claims in the abstract are correct, the contribution would be a useful application paper: DLNs, previously shown effective in tabular domains, are adapted to time-series classification via feature-based representations, with a joint hyperparameter search and a configuration-distribution analysis. The joint search design is a sensible methodological choice and the analysis of selected configurations could provide practical insight into DLN training dynamics. However, the significance cannot be assessed without the actual manuscript. No machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, parameter-free derivations, or falsifiable predictions are present in the review packet. The strong claims of competitive accuracy, low inference cost, and interpretability all require the missing experimental sections to be evaluated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Review packet / Full text] The 'FULL TEXT' supplied for review is arXiv:2508.17511 ('School of Reward Hacks'), not the target manuscript arXiv:2508.17512. Thus the review packet contains only the abstract and an unrelated paper. None of the target paper's methods, experimental tables, baseline definitions, error bars, or inference-cost measurements are available. The central claims in the abstract—'competitive accuracy,' 'retain low inference cost,' and 'transparent, interpretable decision logic' on 51 benchmarks—therefore cannot be checked. This is not a statement about the authors' integrity; it is a statement that the evidence base is absent. A soundness verdict on the technical content is not possible without the correct full text.
  2. [Abstract (feature representation)] The abstract states that time series are converted into Catch22 and TSFresh feature vectors. This is a lossy summarization, and the abstract provides no evidence that the resulting feature vectors preserve enough discriminative temporal information to remain competitive with state-of-the-art time-series classifiers on 51 benchmarks. The accuracy claim is capped by the representation regardless of DLN quality. The paper needs at least a comparison with a raw-input or alternative representation, or an explicit discussion of where feature-based summarization loses to methods that model temporal structure directly. Without this, the 'competitive accuracy' claim is not established.
  3. [Abstract (joint hyperparameter search)] The abstract reports that all configurable settings were integrated into a joint hyperparameter search and that the distribution of selected configurations was analyzed. This raises a validation-discipline concern: if the same 51 benchmarks were used both to select the configuration and to report final accuracy, the reported numbers may reflect benchmark-specific overfitting. The review packet contains no search ranges, number of trials, or description of nested/held-out validation. The configuration-distribution analysis can support conclusions about training dynamics only if the selection procedure is stable and not overfit to the test benchmarks. This point is load-bearing for the generalization claim and must be addressed in the full paper.
  4. [Abstract (interpretability claim)] The abstract promises 'transparent, interpretable decision logic,' but no interpretability evidence is presented: no example learned rules, no measure of rule complexity, no human or proxy readability evaluation, and no comparison with alternative interpretable time-series classifiers. Since interpretability is one of the three core claimed strengths, this is not a cosmetic omission. The full paper should either report interpretability analyses or qualify the claim to 'Boolean decision logic by construction' with appropriate caveats about rule size and human readability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract (references)] Catch22 and TSFresh should be cited precisely (Lubba et al., 2019; Christ et al., 2018), and the exact feature sets, preprocessing, and software versions should be specified in the full paper.
  2. [Abstract (benchmarks)] If the 51 benchmarks come from the UCR archive, this should be stated explicitly, along with the exact train/test split protocol and any resample version used, since UCR results are sensitive to these choices.
  3. [Abstract (novelty claim)] The phrase 'for the first time' should be checked against prior DLN applications to sequential or time-series data; if any exist, the novelty claim should be qualified accordingly.
  4. [Review packet] The mismatch between the stated arXiv identifier and the supplied full text should be corrected by the authors or the submission system before any further review. This is a process issue, but it currently prevents evaluation of the target manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified; the target paper's abstract describes an external benchmark evaluation, and the supplied full text is a different arXiv paper.

full rationale

The available text for the target paper (arXiv:2508.17512) is only its abstract; the full text supplied in the packet is arXiv:2508.17511, a different paper on reward hacking in LLMs. On the abstract alone, the derivation chain is: represent time series with Catch22/TSFresh features, train differentiable logic networks with a joint hyperparameter search, and evaluate on 51 public benchmarks. None of these steps is defined in terms of the conclusion. The accuracy claim is checked against external benchmarks, not against a fitted quantity; the hyperparameter search is a model-selection procedure, not a prediction derived from the fitted values; and the statement that results 'align well with previous DLN findings' is a replication claim, not a self-citation used to justify the result. No equation, definition, or fitted parameter can be exhibited that reduces the claimed prediction to an input, so the hard-rule requirement for flagging circularity is not met. The mismatch between the target paper and the supplied full text is a serious evidence-availability problem for verification, but it is not a circularity problem. Accordingly, the honest score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on three unverified premises: feature adequacy, benchmark representativeness, and transfer of DLN expressiveness from tabular to feature-based time-series classification. In addition, the hyperparameters selected by the joint search are fitted values whose settings are not disclosed in the abstract, and the same search output is then interpreted as evidence about DLN training dynamics, a mildly self-referential reading that is descriptive rather than load-bearing. No invented entities (new particles, forces, or mechanisms) appear. This audit is abstract-only and would need revision against the actual manuscript.

free parameters (2)
  • Jointly searched DLN hyperparameter configuration = not stated in abstract
    All training choices (architecture, gate types, regularization, schedule where applicable) are selected by the search described in the abstract, so the reported results depend on these fitted settings, whose values are not disclosed.
  • Catch22/TSFresh feature extraction and preprocessing settings = not stated in abstract
    Feature computation choices and any per-dataset normalization or scaling are unstated; these can materially change accuracy and are fitted or hand-chosen in practice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Catch22 and TSFresh vectorization preserves sufficient discriminative information for competitive TSC
    Load-bearing: the pipeline converts sequences to vectors before learning, so any information lost in the features caps accuracy. Stated as a design choice, validated neither in the abstract nor by comparison against raw-sequence DLNs.
  • domain assumption The 51 univariate benchmarks, with their split protocol and baselines, fairly represent TSC
    The headline 'competitive accuracy' claim depends entirely on this benchmark set; the abstract does not name the datasets, the train/test protocol, or the comparison baselines.
  • standard math Differentiable relaxation of Boolean logic gates trains reliably via backpropagation
    Carried over from prior DLN publications (tabular domains); treated here as established background rather than re-derived.
  • domain assumption DLN expressiveness transfers from tabular to feature-transformed time-series domains
    The abstract's conclusion 'aligning well with previous DLN findings' explicitly relies on transfer from prior tabular results; the abstract presents this as a finding, but as stated it is an assumption about domain transfer.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Interpretable Differentiable Logic Networks for Time-Series Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D557KJ35

@misc{pith2026250817512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Interpretable Differentiable Logic Networks for Time-Series Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D557KJ35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17512}
}
read the original abstract

Differentiable logic networks (DLNs) have shown promising results in tabular domains by combining accuracy, interpretability, and computational efficiency. In this work, we apply DLNs to the domain of TSC for the first time, focusing on univariate datasets. To enable DLN application in this context, we adopt feature-based representations relying on Catch22 and TSFresh, converting sequential time series into vectorized forms suitable for DLN classification. Unlike prior DLN studies that fix the training configuration and vary various settings in isolation via ablation, we integrate all such configurations into the hyperparameter search space, enabling the search process to select jointly optimal settings. We then analyze the distribution of selected configurations to better understand DLN training dynamics. We evaluate our approach on 51 publicly available univariate TSC benchmarks. The results confirm that classification DLNs maintain their core strengths in this new domain: they deliver competitive accuracy, retain low inference cost, and provide transparent, interpretable decision logic, thus aligning well with previous DLN findings in the realm of tabular classification and regression tasks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Petersen, C

    F. Petersen, C. Borgelt, H. Kuehne, and O. Deussen, ``Deep differentiable logic gate networks,'' in Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 35, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Petersen, H

    F. Petersen, H. Kuehne, C. Borgelt, J. Welzel, and S. Ermon, ``Convolutional differentiable logic gate networks,'' in Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 37, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Yue and N

    C. Yue and N. K. Jha, ``Learning interpretable differentiable logic networks,'' IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Artif. Intell., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 69--82, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    ------, ``Learning interpretable differentiable logic networks for tabular regression,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23615, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    C. H. Lubba, S. S. Sethi, P. Knaute, S. R. Schultz, B. D. Fulcher, and N. S. Jones, ``catch22: CAnonical Time-series CHaracteristics : Selected through highly comparative time-series analysis,'' Data Min. Knowl. Discov., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1821--1852, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Christ, N

    M. Christ, N. Braun, J. Neuffer, and A. W. Kempa-Liehr, ``Time series feature extraction on basis of scalable hypothesis tests (tsfresh--a Python package),'' Neurocomputing, vol. 307, pp. 72--77, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    B. D. Fulcher and N. S. Jones, ``hctsa: A computational framework for automated time-series phenotyping using massive feature extraction,'' Cell Syst., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 527--531, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    H. A. Dau, A. Bagnall, K. Kamgar, C.-C. M. Yeh, Y. Zhu, S. Gharghabi, C. A. Ratanamahatana, and E. Keogh, ``The UCR time series archive,'' IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1293--1305, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    L. A. Zadeh, ``Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility,'' Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3--28, 1978

    1978

  2. [10]

    Menger, ``Statistical metrics,'' Selecta Math., vol

    K. Menger, ``Statistical metrics,'' Selecta Math., vol. 2, pp. 433--435, 2003

    2003

  3. [11]

    Rudin, ``Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,'' Nat

    C. Rudin, ``Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,'' Nat. Mach. Intell., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 206--215, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Why should I trust you?

    M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, `` "Why should I trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier ,'' in Proc. ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min., 2016, pp. 1135--1144

    2016

  5. [13]

    S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, ``A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,'' in Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    R. Xin, C. Zhong, Z. Chen, T. Takagi, M. Seltzer, and C. Rudin, ``Exploring the whole rashomon set of sparse decision trees,'' in Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 35, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Wang and C

    F. Wang and C. Rudin, ``Falling rule lists,'' in Proc. Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Stat., 2015, pp. 1013--1022

    2015

  8. [16]

    Rudin, C

    C. Rudin, C. Chen, Z. Chen, H. Huang, L. Semenova, and C. Zhong, ``Interpretable machine learning: Fundamental principles and 10 grand challenges,'' Stat. Surv., vol. 16, pp. 1--85, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Umuroglu, Y

    Y. Umuroglu, Y. Akhauri, N. J. Fraser, and M. Blott, `` LogicNets : Co-designed neural networks and circuits for extreme-throughput applications,'' in Proc. Int. Conf. Field-Program. Logic Appl., 2020, pp. 291--297

    2020

  10. [18]

    Bagnall, H

    A. Bagnall, H. A. Dau, J. Lines, M. Flynn, J. Large, A. Bostrom, P. Southam, and E. Keogh, ``The UEA multivariate time series classification archive, 2018,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00075, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Middlehurst, P

    M. Middlehurst, P. Sch \"a fer, and A. Bagnall, ``Bake off redux: A review and experimental evaluation of recent time series classification algorithms,'' Data Min. Knowl. Discov., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1958--2031, 2024

    1958

  12. [20]

    Rakthanmanon, B

    T. Rakthanmanon, B. Campana, A. Mueen, G. Batista, B. Westover, Q. Zhu, J. Zakaria, and E. Keogh, ``Addressing big data time series: Mining trillions of time series subsequences under dynamic time warping,'' ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1--31, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Middlehurst and A

    M. Middlehurst and A. Bagnall, ``The freshprince: A simple transformation based pipeline time series classifier,'' in Proc. Int. Conf. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, 2022, pp. 150--161

    2022

  14. [22]

    Dempster, D

    A. Dempster, D. F. Schmidt, and G. I. Webb, `` QUANT : A minimalist interval method for time series classification,'' Data Min. Knowl. Discov., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2377--2402, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Hills, J

    J. Hills, J. Lines, E. Baranauskas, J. Mapp, and A. Bagnall, ``Classification of time series by shapelet transformation,'' Data Min. Knowl. Discov., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 851--881, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Sch \"a fer, ``The BOSS is concerned with time series classification in the presence of noise,'' Data Min

    P. Sch \"a fer, ``The BOSS is concerned with time series classification in the presence of noise,'' Data Min. Knowl. Discov., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1505--1530, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    a fer and M. H \

    P. Sch \"a fer and M. H \"o gqvist, `` SFA : A symbolic Fourier approximation and index for similarity search in high dimensional datasets,'' in Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Extend. Database Technol., 2012, pp. 516--527

    2012

  18. [26]

    Dempster, D

    A. Dempster, D. F. Schmidt, and G. I. Webb, `` MiniRocket : A very fast (almost) deterministic transform for time series classification,'' in Proc. 27th ACM SIGKDD Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min., 2021, pp. 248--257

    2021

  19. [27]

    Z. Wang, W. Yan, and T. Oates, ``Time series classification from scratch with deep neural networks: A strong baseline,'' in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Neural Netw., 2017, pp. 1578--1585

    2017

  20. [28]

    Ismail-Fawaz, M

    A. Ismail-Fawaz, M. Devanne, S. Berretti, J. Weber, and G. Forestier, ``Lite: Light inception with boosting techniques for time series classification,'' in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Data Sci. Adv. Anal.\ (DSAA), 2023, pp. 1--10

    2023

  21. [29]

    Middlehurst, J

    M. Middlehurst, J. Large, M. Flynn, J. Lines, A. Bostrom, and A. Bagnall, `` HIVE-COTE 2.0: A new meta ensemble for time series classification,'' Mach. Learn., vol. 110, no. 11, pp. 3211--3243, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Guillaume, C

    A. Guillaume, C. Vrain, and W. Elloumi, ``Random dilated shapelet transform: A new approach for time series shapelets,'' in Proc. Int. Conf. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, 2022, pp. 653--664

    2022

  23. [31]

    Sch \"a fer and U

    P. Sch \"a fer and U. Leser, `` WEASEL 2.0 : A random dilated dictionary transform for fast, accurate and memory constrained time series classification,'' Mach. Learn., vol. 112, no. 12, pp. 4763--4788, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Dempster, F

    A. Dempster, F. Petitjean, and G. I. Webb, `` ROCKET : Exceptionally fast and accurate time series classification using random convolutional kernels,'' Data Min. Knowl. Discov., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1454--1495, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Bagnall, J

    A. Bagnall, J. Lines, J. Hills, and A. Bostrom, ``Time-series classification with COTE : The collective of transformation-based ensembles,'' IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 2522--2535, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    C. W. Tan, A. Dempster, C. Bergmeir, and G. I. Webb, `` MultiRocket : Multiple pooling operators and transformations for fast and effective time series classification,'' Data Min. Knowl. Discov., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1623--1646, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Meurer, C

    A. Meurer, C. P. Smith, M. Paprocki, O. C ert\' i k, S. B. Kirpichev, M. Rocklin, A. Kumar, S. Ivanov, J. K. Moore, S. Singh, T. Rathnayake, S. Vig, B. E. Granger, R. P. Muller, F. Bonazzi, H. Gupta, S. Vats, F. Johansson, F. Pedregosa, M. J. Curry, A. R. Terrel, S . Rou c ka,...

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Bengio, N

    Y. Bengio, N. L \'e onard, and A. Courville, ``Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.3432, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cheng, L

    H.-T. Cheng, L. Koc, J. Harmsen, T. Shaked, T. Chandra, H. Aradhye, G. Anderson, G. Corrado, W. Chai, M. Ispir et al., ``Wide & deep learning for recommender systems,'' in Proc. 1st Workshop Deep Learn. Recommender Syst., 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Akiba, S

    T. Akiba, S. Sano, T. Yanase, T. Ohta, and M. Koyama, ``Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework,'' in Proc. ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min., 2019, pp. 2623--2631

    2019

  31. [39]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg et al., ``Scikit-learn: Machine learning in P ython,'' J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825--2830, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga et al., ``Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,'' in Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Middlehurst, A

    M. Middlehurst, A. Ismail-Fawaz, A. Guillaume, C. Holder, D. Guijo-Rubio, G. Bulatova, L. Tsaprounis, L. Mentel, M. Walter, P. Sch \"a fer, and A. Bagnall, ``aeon: A python toolkit for learning from time series,'' J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 25, no. 289, pp. 1--10, 2024. [Onlin...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Moritz, R

    P. Moritz, R. Nishihara, S. Wang, A. Tumanov, R. Liaw, E. Liang, M. Elibol, Z. Yang, W. Paul, M. I. Jordan et al., ``Ray: A distributed framework for emerging AI applications,'' in Proc. USENIX Symp. Oper. Syst. Des. Implement., 2018, pp. 561--577

    2018

  35. [43]

    R. Liaw, E. Liang, R. Nishihara, P. Moritz, J. E. Gonzalez, and I. Stoica, ``Tune: A research platform for distributed model selection and training,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.05118, 2018

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.