Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 33 references

Event-Based Early Warning of Vineyard Disease Risk from Environmental Time Series

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-08 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Reformulating vineyard disease risk as event onsets enables practical 3-7 day early warnings from environmental time series.

desk verdict The paper's event-based reformulation for vineyard disease warnings is a clean tweak on problem setup, but the abstract gives no numbers and the manual labels lack any validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.04548 v1 submitted 2026-05-06 cs.LG

Ivica Dimitrovski , Ivan Kitanovski , Danco Davcev , Slobodan Kalajdziski , Kosta Mitreski This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords vineyarddiseasepredictionevent-basedearlywarningenvironmentaltimeseriesmachinelearningLSTMTCNXGBoostagro-meteorologicaldata
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

The paper argues that daily classification of disease status tends to reward models for repeating recent labels rather than detecting real precursors in weather patterns. Instead it defines distinct risk events only after a minimum disease-free gap and asks models to forecast the start of these events within the next 3-7 days. Input features track humidity dynamics, rainfall totals, temperature swings, and seasonal cycles through cyclic encoding. When tested on multi-year vineyard data with XGBoost, LSTM, and TCN, the event formulation yields usable short-horizon alerts while the models differ in how well they balance event detection against false alarms and warning lead time. A reader would care because such warnings can guide timely, targeted interventions that limit unnecessary pesticide applications.

What carries the argument

The event-based reformulation that creates new risk events only after a minimum disease-free gap in the binary labels, turning the task into forecasting onset transitions within a 3-7 day window.

What would settle it

Independent verification of actual disease outbreaks in a new vineyard season, checking whether alerts issued by the models would have prompted interventions that measurably reduce observed disease incidence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that shifting from daily disease-presence classification to the prediction of transitions into annotated risk periods 3-7 days ahead, after enforcing a minimum disease-free gap between events, lets models focus on environmental precursors rather than persistence. This is shown by constructing time-series inputs that encode humidity dynamics, rainfall accumulation, temperature variability, and seasonal structure, then comparing XGBoost, LSTM, and TCN under both standard metrics and an event-oriented protocol that tracks recall, lead time, and false-alert behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The manually annotated disease-risk periods and the chosen minimum disease-free gap accurately reflect real biological onset without introducing labeling artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Models trained this way issue warnings with measurable lead time instead of simply echoing recent daily status.
  • XGBoost, LSTM, and TCN display distinct operating points on the trade-off between catching true risk events and limiting false alerts.
  • Features built from accumulation metrics and cyclic seasonal encoding help surface the environmental conditions that precede risk periods.
  • The same event definition can be applied to other environmental time-series tasks where persistence bias distorts daily forecasts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The approach could be tested on other crops by swapping the annotation source while keeping the event-gap rule fixed.
  • Streaming sensor data could feed the same models to produce automated daily risk-onset scores for farm management systems.
  • Pairing the learned precursors with existing biological disease models might expose and correct any systematic annotation biases.
  • Operational systems could select among the three model families according to whether their priority is high recall or low false-alarm rate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an event-based approach to early warning of vineyard disease risk using environmental time series data. Instead of daily disease presence classification, it reformulates the task as predicting transitions into annotated risk periods within a 3-7 day horizon, defining new events only after a minimum disease-free gap to reduce fragmentation. The authors construct features from humidity, rainfall, temperature, and seasonal encoding, and compare XGBoost, LSTM, and TCN models using standard metrics and an event-oriented protocol, concluding that the formulation supports practical short-horizon warning with distinct model trade-offs.

Significance. If the empirical results are robust, this work underscores the importance of problem formulation in time-series machine learning for environmental applications. By shifting focus to event transitions, it may enable more actionable predictions for disease management, reducing unnecessary interventions and supporting sustainable practices. The combination of classical and deep learning models with event-specific evaluation metrics provides a useful template for similar warning systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1 (Annotation of Disease-Risk Periods)] §3.1 (Annotation of Disease-Risk Periods): The manual annotation protocol for defining disease-risk periods is not described in detail, with no mention of validation against observed disease incidence data, inter-rater reliability, or sensitivity to annotator choices. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as the event-based formulation's advantage in capturing precursors (rather than persistence) depends on these labels accurately reflecting biological onsets; without it, reported trade-offs in recall and lead time could be labeling artifacts.
  2. [§3.2 (Event Definition and Gap Parameter)] §3.2 (Event Definition and Gap Parameter): The minimum disease-free gap length is introduced to reduce fragmentation but is treated as a fixed choice with no ablation study or sensitivity results on how different gap values affect event boundaries, model performance, or comparison to daily classification baselines. This parameter directly shapes the prediction targets and thus the claimed practical utility of the event-based approach.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§5 (Results and Evaluation)] §5 (Results and Evaluation): The event-oriented protocol metrics (recall, lead time, false alerts) are used but would benefit from an explicit worked example on a sample time series to clarify how they are computed from model outputs.
  2. [Figure 3 (Model Comparisons)] Figure 3 (Model Comparisons): The trade-off plots are informative but lack error bars or statistical significance tests across the multi-year folds, making it harder to assess whether observed differences between XGBoost, LSTM, and TCN are reliable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help improve the clarity and robustness of our work on event-based disease risk prediction. We address each major comment below, committing to revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.1 (Annotation of Disease-Risk Periods)] §3.1 (Annotation of Disease-Risk Periods): The manual annotation protocol for defining disease-risk periods is not described in detail, with no mention of validation against observed disease incidence data, inter-rater reliability, or sensitivity to annotator choices. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as the event-based formulation's advantage in capturing precursors (rather than persistence) depends on these labels accurately reflecting biological onsets; without it, reported trade-offs in recall and lead time could be labeling artifacts.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the annotation protocol requires more detailed exposition to substantiate the central claims of the paper. We will revise §3.1 to include a comprehensive description of the annotation protocol, specifying the steps taken to define disease-risk periods based on environmental conditions and expert input. Additionally, we will add text discussing the absence of inter-rater reliability measures and sensitivity analysis to annotator choices, as well as the lack of direct validation against independent disease incidence observations. We will explain that the protocol was designed based on established agricultural practices for vineyard disease monitoring and discuss how this might affect the interpretation of the model trade-offs in recall and lead time. This will mitigate concerns about labeling artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2 (Event Definition and Gap Parameter)] §3.2 (Event Definition and Gap Parameter): The minimum disease-free gap length is introduced to reduce fragmentation but is treated as a fixed choice with no ablation study or sensitivity results on how different gap values affect event boundaries, model performance, or comparison to daily classification baselines. This parameter directly shapes the prediction targets and thus the claimed practical utility of the event-based approach.

    Authors: We agree that an analysis of the gap parameter's sensitivity would strengthen the paper and better support the claimed practical utility. In the revised version, we will add an ablation study, varying the minimum disease-free gap length across a range of values and reporting the effects on the number of defined events, model performance metrics, and comparisons to the daily classification baseline. We will also provide a justification for the gap length selected in the primary experiments, grounded in the typical disease cycle characteristics in vineyards. These additions will demonstrate the robustness of our findings to this parameter. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in empirical ML comparison

full rationale

The paper defines an event-based prediction task from manually annotated disease-risk periods and a chosen minimum disease-free gap, then trains and evaluates standard ML models (XGBoost, LSTM, TCN) on held-out agro-meteorological time series to predict transitions into those periods. No mathematical derivation, first-principles result, or fitted parameter is claimed that reduces by construction to the inputs; the central claims rest on empirical metrics and event-oriented evaluation rather than self-referential definitions or self-citation chains. The formulation's encouragement of precursor learning is a direct consequence of the task definition, not a circular reduction of any reported result.

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

The central claim rests on standard supervised learning assumptions plus domain-specific choices for event definition and feature engineering; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • minimum disease-free gap length
    A threshold chosen to reduce label fragmentation; its specific value is a modeling decision not derived from first principles.
  • prediction horizon window (3-7 days)
    The future window size is a design parameter selected for practical warning utility.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Environmental variables (humidity dynamics, rainfall accumulation, temperature variability) contain detectable precursors to disease-risk periods
    Invoked when constructing input representations; treated as given rather than tested.
  • domain assumption Cyclic temporal encoding adequately captures seasonal structure
    Used without further justification in the feature construction step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Event-Based Early Warning of Vineyard Disease Risk from Environmental Time Series." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2605.04548

@misc{pith2026260504548,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Event-Based Early Warning of Vineyard Disease Risk from Environmental Time Series},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2605.04548}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.04548}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate early warning of vineyard disease risk from environmental observations is essential for timely intervention and more sustainable crop protection. However, many existing studies formulate disease prediction as daily presence classification, which can favor persistence-driven predictions and provide only limited support for actionable short-horizon warning. In this paper, we present an event-based approach for early warning of vineyard disease risk from environmental time series and evaluate it through a vineyard case study. Rather than predicting daily disease status, the task is reformulated to predict transitions into annotated disease-risk periods within a future window of 3-7 days. To reduce fragmentation caused by short interruptions in the binary labels, new events are defined only after a minimum disease-free gap. This formulation encourages models to capture environmental precursors associated with upcoming risk periods instead of merely reproducing temporal persistence. Using multi-year agro-meteorological data, we construct input representations that capture humidity dynamics, rainfall accumulation, temperature variability, and seasonal structure through cyclic temporal encoding. We evaluate representative methods from classical machine learning and deep learning, including XGBoost, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, and Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCNs), using both standard classification metrics and an event-oriented early warning protocol. The results show that the event-based formulation supports practical short-horizon warning, while the compared models exhibit distinct trade-offs between event recall, lead time, and false-alert behavior. Overall, the study underscores the importance of problem formulation in environmental time-series learning and demonstrates the value of event-based prediction for vineyard disease warning systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04548 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed pipeline for event-based early warning of vineyard disease risk from environmental view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of the vineyard environmental time series and the derived single-target disease-risk annotation for view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Representative visual symptoms of grapevine powdery mildew and downy mildew. (a) Powdery mildew, view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the compared model architectures used for event-based early warning of vineyard disease
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Per-event comparison of early warning performance on the 2023 test year. Each row corresponds to a

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Grapevine trunk diseases: a review of fifteen years of trials for their control with chemicals and biocontrol agents.Plant disease, 102(7):1189–1217, 2018

    Vincenzo Mondello, Aurélie Songy, Enrico Battiston, Catia Pinto, Cindy Coppin, Patricia Trotel-Aziz, Christophe Clément, Laura Mugnai, and Florence Fontaine. Grapevine trunk diseases: a review of fifteen years of trials for their control with chemicals and biocontrol agents.Plant disease, 102(7):1189–1217, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    River Publishers, 08 2023

    Luiz Angelo Steffenel, Axel Langlet, Lilian Hollard, Lucas Mohimont, Nathalie Vaillant-Gaveau, Marcello Copola, Clément Pierlot, and Marine Rondeau.AI-Driven Strategies to Implement a Grapevine Downy Mildew Warning System, pages 177–187. River Publishers, 08 2023. 15 APREPRINT- MAY7, 2026

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    A systematic review on the advancements in remote sensing and proximity tools for grapevine disease detection

    Fernando Portela, Joaquim J Sousa, Cláudio Araújo-Paredes, Emanuel Peres, Raul Morais, and Luís Pádua. A systematic review on the advancements in remote sensing and proximity tools for grapevine disease detection. Sensors, 24(24):8172, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Current trends and perspectives on predictive models for mildew diseases in vineyards.Microorganisms, 11(1):73, 2022

    Luisa Velasquez-Camacho, Marta Otero, Boris Basile, Josep Pijuan, and Giandomenico Corrado. Current trends and perspectives on predictive models for mildew diseases in vineyards.Microorganisms, 11(1):73, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Grapevine disease risk assessment through multi-modal data analysis.Smart Agricultural Technology, page 102040, 2026

    Martha Kotaidou, Achilleas Blekos, Konstantinos Chatzis, Theocharis Chatzis, Dimitrios Konstantinidis, Antiopi Tsoureki, George Tsiolas, Ilias Kalfas, Anagnostis Argiriou, and Kosmas Dimitropoulos. Grapevine disease risk assessment through multi-modal data analysis.Smart Agricultural Technology, page 102040, 2026

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Agentic ai-based iot precision agriculture framework—our vision and challenges.AgriEngineering, 8(4):147, 2026

    Danco Davcev, Slobodan Kalajdziski, Ivica Dimitrovski, Ivan Kitanovski, and Kosta Mitreski. Agentic ai-based iot precision agriculture framework—our vision and challenges.AgriEngineering, 8(4):147, 2026

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Utilizing tabpfn transformer with iot environmental data for early prediction of grapevine diseases.AgriEngineer- ing, 7(6):173, 2025

    Nikolaos Arvanitis, Filippo Graziosi, Gina Athanasiou, Antonia Terpou, Olga Arvaniti, and Theodore Zahariadis. Utilizing tabpfn transformer with iot environmental data for early prediction of grapevine diseases.AgriEngineer- ing, 7(6):173, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Forecasting severe grape downy mildew attacks using machine learning.Plos one, 15(3):e0230254, 2020

    Mathilde Chen, François Brun, Marc Raynal, and David Makowski. Forecasting severe grape downy mildew attacks using machine learning.Plos one, 15(3):e0230254, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Advanced forecasting modeling to early predict powdery mildew first appearance in different vines cultivars.Sustainability, 15(3):2837, 2023

    Roberto Valori, Corrado Costa, Simone Figorilli, Luciano Ortenzi, Rossella Manganiello, Roberto Ciccoritti, Francesca Cecchini, Massimo Morassut, Noemi Bevilacqua, Giorgio Colatosti, et al. Advanced forecasting modeling to early predict powdery mildew first appearance in diffe...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Detection of vineyard diseases using the internet of things technology and machine learning algorithms.Aerul si Apa

    Roxana Ro¸ sc˘aneanu, Robert Streche, Filip Osiac, Cristina B˘al˘aceanu, George Suciu, Ana Maria Dr˘agulinescu, and Ioana Marcu. Detection of vineyard diseases using the internet of things technology and machine learning algorithms.Aerul si Apa. Componente ale Mediului, pages ...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Realizing short-term disease forecasting in crops via multimodal monitoring with leaf-underside-sensing agricultural robot.Sensors & Materials, 37, 2025

    Kenji Terada, Shigeyoshi Ohno, and Kaori Fujinami. Realizing short-term disease forecasting in crops via multimodal monitoring with leaf-underside-sensing agricultural robot.Sensors & Materials, 37, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 785–794. ACM, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    The performance of LSTM and BiLSTM in forecasting time series

    Sima Siami-Namini, Neda Tavakoli, and Akbar Siami Namin. The performance of LSTM and BiLSTM in forecasting time series. In2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pages 3285–3292. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Temporal convolutional neural (tcn) network for an effective weather forecasting using time-series data from the local weather station: P

    Pradeep Hewage, Ardhendu Behera, Marcello Trovati, Ella Pereira, Morteza Ghahremani, Francesco Palmieri, and Yonghuai Liu. Temporal convolutional neural (tcn) network for an effective weather forecasting using time-series data from the local weather station: P. hewage et al.So...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Adapting models to warn fungal diseases in vineyards using in-field internet of things (iot) nodes.Sustainability, 11(2):416, 2019

    Sergio Trilles Oliver, Alberto González-Pérez, and Joaquin Huerta Guijarro. Adapting models to warn fungal diseases in vineyards using in-field internet of things (iot) nodes.Sustainability, 11(2):416, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Grapevine downy mildew warning system based on nb-iot and energy harvesting technology.Electronics, 11(3):356, 2022

    Ivan Mezei, Milan Luki´c, Lazar Berbakov, Bogdan Pavkovi´c, and Boris Radovanovi´c. Grapevine downy mildew warning system based on nb-iot and energy harvesting technology.Electronics, 11(3):356, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Predictive analysis and wine-grapes disease risk assessment based on atmospheric parameters and precision agriculture platform

    Ioana Marcu, Ana-Maria Dr˘agulinescu, Cristina Oprea, George Suciu, and Cristina B˘al˘aceanu. Predictive analysis and wine-grapes disease risk assessment based on atmospheric parameters and precision agriculture platform. Sustainability, 14(18):11487, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Semantic segmentation of remote sensing images: definition, methods, datasets and applications

    Vlatko Spasev, Ivica Dimitrovski, Ivan Kitanovski, and Ivan Chorbev. Semantic segmentation of remote sensing images: definition, methods, datasets and applications. InInternational conference on ICT innovations, pages 127–140. Springer, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Deep multimodal fusion for semantic segmentation of remote sensing earth

    Ivica Dimitrovski, Vlatko Spasev, and Ivan Kitanovski. Deep multimodal fusion for semantic segmentation of remote sensing earth. InICT Innovations 2024. TechConvergence: AI, Business, and Startup Synergy: 16th International Conference, ICT Innovations 2024, Ohrid, North Macedo...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Forecasting plant and crop disease: an explorative study on current algorithms.Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 5(1):2, 2021

    Gianni Fenu and Francesca Maridina Malloci. Forecasting plant and crop disease: an explorative study on current algorithms.Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 5(1):2, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Predicting crop disease severity using real time weather variability through machine learning algorithms.Scientific Reports, 15(1):34767, 2025

    Amit Bijlwan, Rajeev Ranjan, Manendra Singh, Rahul Purohit, Arun Jyoti Nath, and Sumit Chakravarty. Predicting crop disease severity using real time weather variability through machine learning algorithms.Scientific Reports, 15(1):34767, 2025. 16 APREPRINT- MAY7, 2026

    2025

  14. [22]

    A neural network approach for disease forecasting in grapes using weather parameters

    S Sannakki, VS Rajpurohit, F Sumira, and H Venkatesh. A neural network approach for disease forecasting in grapes using weather parameters. In2013 Fourth International Conference on Computing, Communications and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Iot based solution for grape disease prediction using convolutional neural network and farm monitoring.Int J Sci Res Eng Dev, 2:494–500, 2019

    R Chavan, A Deoghare, R Dugar, and P Karad. Iot based solution for grape disease prediction using convolutional neural network and farm monitoring.Int J Sci Res Eng Dev, 2:494–500, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Ai-based early warning system for disease forecasting in integrated aquaculture–agriculture systems.National Journal of Smart Agriculture and Rural Innovation, pages 19–27, 2026

    Saravanakumar Veerappan and N Arvinth. Ai-based early warning system for disease forecasting in integrated aquaculture–agriculture systems.National Journal of Smart Agriculture and Rural Innovation, pages 19–27, 2026

    2026

  17. [25]

    Harnessing lstm for climate-sensitive precision agriculture: Predicting rice blast disease expansion

    Maharani Citra Adi Ratna, Mochamad Nizar Palefi Ma’Ady, and Berlian Rahmy Lidiawaty. Harnessing lstm for climate-sensitive precision agriculture: Predicting rice blast disease expansion. In2025 2nd Beyond Technology Summit on Informatics International Conference (BTS-I2C), pag...

    2025

  18. [26]

    Ai based hybrid cnn-lstm model for crop disease prediction: An ml advent for rice crop

    Sonal Jain and Dharavath Ramesh. Ai based hybrid cnn-lstm model for crop disease prediction: An ml advent for rice crop. In2021 12th international conference on computing communication and networking technologies (icccnt), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Scalable crop yield prediction with sentinel-2 time series and temporal convolutional network.Remote Sensing, 14(17):4193, 2022

    Maria Yli-Heikkilä, Samantha Wittke, Markku Luotamo, Eetu Puttonen, Mi Sulkava, Petri Pellikka, Janne Heiskanen, and Arto Klami. Scalable crop yield prediction with sentinel-2 time series and temporal convolutional network.Remote Sensing, 14(17):4193, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Grapevine disease prediction using climate variables from multi-sensor remote sensing imagery via a transformer model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07094, 2024

    Weiying Zhao and Natalia Efremova. Grapevine disease prediction using climate variables from multi-sensor remote sensing imagery via a transformer model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07094, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Climate-based prediction of rice blast disease using count time series and machine learning approaches.AgriEngineering, 6(4):4353–4371, 2024

    Meena Arumugam Gopalakrishnan, Gopalakrishnan Chellappan, Santhosh Ganapati Patil, Santosha Rathod, Kamalakannan Ayyanar, Jagadeeswaran Ramasamy, Sathyamoorthy Nagaranai Karuppasamy, and Manonmani Swaminathan. Climate-based prediction of rice blast disease using count time ser...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Early prediction on time series: A nearest neighbor approach

    Zhengzheng Xing, Jian Pei, and S Yu Philip. Early prediction on time series: A nearest neighbor approach. In IJCAI, number 11-17, page 2009, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    Teaser: early and accurate time series classification.Data mining and knowledge discovery, 34(5):1336–1362, 2020

    Patrick Schäfer and Ulf Leser. Teaser: early and accurate time series classification.Data mining and knowledge discovery, 34(5):1336–1362, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Temporal label smoothing for early event prediction

    Hugo Yèche, Alizée Pace, Gunnar Ratsch, and Rita Kuznetsova. Temporal label smoothing for early event prediction. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 39913–39938. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    When is early classification of time series meaningful?IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(3):3253–3260, 2021

    Renjie Wu, Audrey Der, and Eamonn J Keogh. When is early classification of time series meaningful?IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(3):3253–3260, 2021. 17

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed May 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.