QFCQT: A Chaotically Gated Quantformer Framework for Volatile Time-Series Forecasting

Junkai Lin; Raymond Lee; Siqi Hou

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 21 references

QFCQT: A Chaotically Gated Quantformer Framework for Volatile Time-Series Forecasting

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that feed-forward activation design is a crucial, underexplored factor in Transformer forecasting, and that a learnable mix of eight Lee oscillator families, gated with GELU, yields large MSE improvements on volatile…

desk verdict The soft-mixture-of-oscillators idea is a reasonable incremental extension, but the paper's own tables contradict its 'consistent outperformance' claim and contain duplicated rows, so it is not referee-ready. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07363 v1 pith:MKULCQUV submitted 2026-08-07 cs.AI

Junkai Lin , Siqi Hou , Raymond Lee This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords Time-seriesforecastingQuantformerLeeOscillatorchaoticactivationTransformervolatilesystemsnon-stationarydynamicsgatedfusion

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

QFCQT claims that the feed-forward nonlinear transformation, not just attention, is a crucial factor in Transformer time-series forecasting. The paper proposes replacing static smooth activations with a learnable mixture of eight Lee oscillator families, compressed by Max-over-Time pooling and adaptively gated against GELU, inside a Quantformer-style linear-embedding encoder. On ETTh2 at horizon 24 it reports a 43.9% MSE improvement over HAT and 41.3% over COTN, with consistent gains across ETTh1 and an A-share stock index benchmark, supporting the claim that chaos-aware activation helps most in highly volatile regimes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the chaotically gated feed-forward block. Each pre-activation drives $N$ internal steps of the discrete Lee oscillator dynamics $E(t+1)=f(a_1L(t)+a_2E(t)-a_3I(t)+a_4S(t)-\xi_E)$, $I(t+1)=f(b_1L(t)-b_2E(t)-b_3I(t)+b_4S(t)-\xi_I)$, $\Omega(t+1)=f(S(t))$, $L(t)=[E(t)-I(t)]\exp(-kS(t)^2)+\Omega(t)$; the trajectory is collapsed by Max-over-Time pooling to a scalar $f^{\mathrm{MoT}}_k(x)$. Eight such families (Table I) are mixed by softmax weights $\pi_k$ and fused with GELU via $f_{\mathrm{QFCQT}}(x)=\sigma(\lambda)\,\mathrm{GELU}(x)+(1-\sigma(\lambda)) f_{\mathrm{chaos}}(x)$, inside a Quantformer-style linear-embedding encoder.

What would settle it

Run a matched-capacity ablation in which the eight Lee oscillator families are replaced by an equally sized mixture of trainable smooth activations (for example, eight learned GELU variants) with the same gate and training protocol; if the ETTh2 horizon-24 MSE gap over HAT disappears or reverses, the chaotic mechanism is not the causal ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the feed-forward block's activation function can be a source of forecasting sensitivity to abrupt regime changes. QFCQT turns each scalar pre-activation into an internal oscillator trajectory across eight parameterized Lee oscillator families, pools the trajectory with Max-over-Time, mixes the families with a softmax over learnable weights, and fuses the result with GELU through a learnable scalar gate. The authors argue this preserves training stability while adding local nonlinear responsiveness, and report that the full model consistently outperforms Informer, LogTrans, LSTMa, HAT, COTN, and TimesNet across horizons, with the largest margins on the most volatile settings.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the forecast improvements come from chaos-aware activation itself, but it never tests an equally parameterized smooth alternative, so added feed-forward capacity could explain the gains as easily as the oscillator dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Transformer forecasters should be evaluated with activation design as a controlled variable, not just attention and tokenization.
Oscillator trajectories, once collapsed by Max-over-Time pooling, can serve as practical activations without destroying the parameter count of a standard feed-forward block.
A learnable smooth-chaotic gate offers a stable way to inject strong nonlinearity, letting the model decide per layer how much chaotic response to admit.

Reading between the lines

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

A matched-capacity control is the natural next experiment; without it, the 43.9% figure cannot be cleanly attributed to chaos rather than to the extra oscillator parameters.
The eight oscillator coefficient sets in Table I are hand-set without sensitivity analysis, so the framework's reliability across datasets and horizons may rest on those specific values.
If the mechanism is what produces the gains, then learning the oscillator parameters themselves rather than fixing them should improve or preserve performance; this is a testable extension the paper leaves open.
The 'quantum-fractal-inspired' naming is explicitly analogical, so the paper's practical contribution is the gated oscillator activation, not a new physical theory.

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, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is an incremental extension of the group's own COTN line—soft mixture over eight Lee oscillator families inside a Quantformer-style encoder—and the authors are upfront that it's a practical integration, not a new theory. That part is fine. The problem is that the abstract and conclusion claim QFCQT 'consistently outperforms' HAT and COTN, and Table IV in the same paper shows negative relative improvements over COTN on ETTh1 h48 MAE (-3.2%), ETTh1 h336 MAE (-3.1%), and ETTh2 h336 MSE (-1.1%). You can't call that consistent. The stress-test note is correct, and it's not a rounding artifact: the raw numbers in Table III back it up.

There's also a clear copy-paste error in Table II: the QFCQT row for ETTh1 h48 (MSE 0.619, MAE 0.584) is identical to the h168 row. Same values for two different horizons is a data-handling red flag. The ablation study in Section V.C names modules—QuantumSuperposition LORS, VectorizedLeeOscillator, FractalModulatedAttention—that never appear in the methodology. That mismatch suggests the ablation description was written for a different version of the model. No code, seeds, or dataset splits are provided, so none of the numbers can be checked.

What's genuinely new is the learnable soft mixture over eight hand-set oscillator families (Eq. 16–17). That is a reasonable extension of COTN's single-oscillator approach, and the paper does a decent job explaining the mechanics. The explicit disclaimer that 'quantum-fractal-inspired' is just an analogy is a point in its favor. The comparison set includes external baselines like Informer, LogTrans, and TimesNet, so it's not purely self-referential; that part is fine.

The matched-capacity concern raised by the reader is real but secondary. The model adds eight oscillator families and a gate on top of the baselines; without a parameter-matched control, the gains could be extra capacity rather than chaotic response. But that issue is separate from the contradiction in the tables, which is load-bearing because it attacks the headline result directly.

My take: desk reject in current form. The internal inconsistency and duplicated rows are mechanical problems that any editor would catch, and they undermine trust in the reported results. If the authors correct the tables, resolve the ablation mismatch, and release code, it might merit a quick look in a future round. As is, there's no need to spend referee time on it.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes QFCQT, a Transformer forecasting architecture whose feed-forward blocks replace ordinary pointwise activations with a learnable mixture of eight Lee-oscillator activation families, fused with GELU through a gating scalar. The model is evaluated on ETTh1, ETTh2, and a private A-share stock dataset, with the abstract and conclusion claiming that QFCQT 'consistently outperforms' Informer, LogTrans, LSTMa, HAT, COTN, and TimesNet, including large gains at ETTh2 horizon 24. The paper explicitly disclaims any formal quantum or fractal derivation, framing those terms as computational analogies.

Significance. If the empirical claims could be trusted, the core idea—replacing standard static activations in Transformer feed-forward blocks with a learnable, oscillator-based chaotic gate—would be a simple and potentially useful architectural modification for volatile time series. The paper also deserves credit for clearly stating the limits of its quantum/fractal terminology and for providing an ablation that shows some degradation when the proposed modules are removed. However, the headline claim of consistent outperformance is directly contradicted by the paper's own tables, and the mechanistic interpretation is under-supported by the experiments as reported. No code or data are provided, which further limits verification.

major comments (4)

[Abstract, Section V.A, Section VII, Tables III and IV] The abstract and conclusion state that QFCQT 'consistently outperforms' strong baselines, but Table IV reports negative relative improvements over COTN in three settings: ETTh1 h48 MAE (-3.2%), ETTh1 h336 MAE (-3.1%), and ETTh2 h336 MSE (-1.1%). Table III confirms the underlying comparisons (QFCQT MAE 0.584 vs COTN MAE 0.566 at ETTh1 h48; QFCQT MSE 2.542 vs COTN MSE 2.514 at ETTh2 h336). Since 'consistently' is an all-quantifier claim, the paper's own results falsify it. The claim must be qualified to 'in most settings' or similar, and the negative cases need explicit discussion.
[Table II] The QFCQT row for ETTh1 horizon 48 (MSE 0.619, MAE 0.584) is identical to the QFCQT row for ETTh1 horizon 168 (MSE 0.619, MAE 0.584), and Table III repeats the same values for horizon 48. Identical results across two different horizons are implausible and indicate a data-handling or reporting error. These tables must be corrected and the source of the duplication explained before the empirical results can be assessed.
[Section V.C, Table V] The ablation removes QuantumSuperpositionLORS, VectorizedLeeOscillator, FractalModulatedAttention, and the original forecasting head simultaneously, and results are reported only for horizon 24. This design cannot support the statement in Section V.C that 'each of them contributes positively' to forecasting performance; individual ablations and additional horizons are needed. Furthermore, FractalModulatedAttention is not defined in the model description (Equations 8–10 describe only standard multi-head self-attention), so the reader cannot determine what component was actually removed.
[Section V.D, Table I] The mechanistic interpretation in Section V.D attributes the gains to chaos-aware activation, but the model adds eight oscillator families, a learnable mixture, and a gate on top of a baseline without a matched-capacity control. The extra parameters alone could explain the observed improvements. Additionally, the hand-set Lee oscillator coefficients in Table I are chosen without sensitivity analysis, so the assumption that one fixed set of coefficients is universally appropriate across all datasets and horizons is unverified and load-bearing for the claimed mechanism.

minor comments (5)

[Title] The title contains a typo: 'V olatile' should be 'Volatile'.
[References, [7]] Reference [7], cited for LogTrans, points to a biomedical image segmentation paper by Nie et al. (2022), not to the LogTrans time-series forecasting work; the correct source should be cited.
[Section V.A] The sentence 'Table II and III reports the comprehensive forecasting results' has a subject-verb agreement error and inconsistent table numbering; it should read 'Tables II and III report...'.
[Equations 4 and 7] Equation (4) and Equation (7) both define H(0) = X W_e + b_e; the duplicate definition should be removed or replaced with a cross-reference.
[Section IV.A] The text says 'we use two representative time-series datasets' but then lists three: ETTh1, ETTh2, and A-share Stock Index. This should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QFCQT's components are defined by explicit equations and evaluated against external baselines; self-cited oscillator/COTN work motivates the architecture but does not define the empirical forecasting claim.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is architectural and empirical, not definitional. The model is specified by explicit equations (4)-(24): linear embedding, self-attention, Lee-oscillator dynamics with Table I parameters, Max-over-Time pooling, soft mixture, gated fusion, and MSE/MAE objectives. None of these equations defines the forecasting result in terms of the model's own fitted outputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a 'prediction.' The central claim of outperformance is supported by Table III comparisons against external baselines (Informer, LogTrans, LSTMa, HAT, TimesNet), not by derivation from the self-cited Lee/COTN work. Self-citations [3]-[6] motivate component choices (oscillator dynamics, pooling, gating), but they are not used as proof of the headline result; the COTN baseline is also independently evaluated in the same tables. The manuscript does contain internal-consistency problems that bear on correctness rather than circularity: Table IV reports negative relative improvements over COTN in three settings (ETTh1 h48 MAE -3.2%, ETTh1 h336 MAE -3.1%, ETTh2 h336 MSE -1.1%), contradicting the 'consistently outperforms' wording, and Table II/III show identical QFCQT values for ETTh1 h48 and h168. These issues do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs, so they are not circularity under the stated criteria. Score 0.

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

The model relies on learned network weights and hand-set oscillator constants; no new physical entities are introduced. The 'quantum-fractal-inspired' terminology is stated to be a computational analogy, not a formal theory. The ablation section names components (e.g., FractalModulatedAttention) that are not defined in Section III, so the contribution of these components cannot be audited.

free parameters (4)

Hand-set Lee oscillator coefficients (Table I) = a1, a2, a3, a4, b1, b2, b3, b4, xi_E, xi_I, mu, k for 8 oscillator types
These constants define the chaotic responses and are chosen without reported tuning or sensitivity analysis; the claimed robustness rests on them.
Softmax mixture logits c_k (Eq. 16) = learned during training
Determines the soft combination of the eight oscillator families; learned end-to-end, so it is a fitted quantity.
Gate scalar lambda (Eq. 19) = learned during training
Balances smooth GELU vs chaotic response; learned, so the final activation is fitted to data.
All other network weights (embedding W_e, attention projections, 1x1 convolutions) = learned by gradient descent on each dataset
The forecast accuracy numbers depend on standard fitted weights; listed for completeness.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The discrete Lee oscillator update equations (Eqs. 11-14) capture meaningful chaotic behavior useful for forecasting.
Taken from prior work by the same group (refs [4]-[6]); no evidence in this paper that these specific oscillators are better than other nonlinear activations.
ad hoc to paper The eight hand-picked oscillator parameter sets (Table I) are universal across datasets and horizons.
Coefficients are fixed constants introduced in this paper; they must transfer across ETTh1, ETTh2, and the A-share data for the claims to hold.
domain assumption The A-share private dataset preprocessing (Z-score filtering, forward-fill) does not remove the volatile structure being modeled.
Opaque vendor data and cleaning rules; no distribution or stationarity analysis provided.
domain assumption GELU-based smooth-chaotic gated fusion preserves optimization stability.
Stated in Section V.D but not demonstrated with training curves or loss traces.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QFCQT: A Chaotically Gated Quantformer Framework for Volatile Time-Series Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MKULCQUV

@misc{pith2026260807363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QFCQT: A Chaotically Gated Quantformer Framework for Volatile Time-Series Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MKULCQUV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07363}
}

read the original abstract

Forecasting non-stationary time series remains difficult due to long-range dependencies, local volatility bursts, structural shifts, and nonlinear oscillatory behaviors. Although Transformer-based forecasters are effective for modeling long-term temporal dependencies, their feed-forward blocks typically rely on smooth static activations that are insufficiently sensitive to abrupt regime changes. Motivated by quantitative Transformer designs and oscillator-based nonlinear activations, we propose QFCQT, short for Quantum-Fractal-inspired Chaotically Gated Quantformer, for robust forecasting under complex volatile dynamics. Here, "quantum-fractal-inspired" denotes a computational analogy based on soft oscillator superposition and multi-scale nonlinear responses, rather than a formal quantum-mechanical or fractal-theoretic derivation. QFCQT consists of three main components: (1) a Quantformer-style numerical encoder that directly processes multivariate inputs via linear embedding; (2) a learnable Lee-oscillator activation module that maps scalar pre-activations to dynamic oscillatory responses and summarizes them through Max-over-Time pooling; and (3) a smooth-chaotic gated fusion mechanism that adaptively balances conventional smooth activations and chaos-sensitive responses. Furthermore, instead of using a single fixed oscillator, QFCQT employs a soft superposition of eight parameterized Lee oscillator families to adaptively capture different nonlinear response patterns across regimes. Experiments on ETTh1, ETTh2, and A-share Stock Index benchmarks show that QFCQT consistently outperforms strong baselines, including Informer, LogTrans, LSTMa, HAT, and COTN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07363 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Bifurcation visualizations of the eight Lee Oscillator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Activation response comparison of GELU, representa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Dfc-lstm: A novel lstm architecture integrating dynamic fractal gating and chaotic activation for value-at-risk forecasting,

Y . Zeng, B. Tang, Z. Zhou, and R. S. Lee, “Dfc-lstm: A novel lstm architecture integrating dynamic fractal gating and chaotic activation for value-at-risk forecasting,”Mathematics, vol. 13, no. 22, p. 3587, 2025

work page 2025
[2]

Quantformer: from attention to profit with a quantitative transformer trading strategy,

Z. Zhang, B. Chen, S. Zhu, and N. Langren ´e, “Quantformer: from attention to profit with a quantitative transformer trading strategy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00424, 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

Cotn: A chaotic oscillatory transformer network for complex volatile systems under extreme conditions,

B. Tang, Y . Zeng, X. Ren, P. Xiao, Y . Zhao, R. Lee, and J. Wu, “Cotn: A chaotic oscillatory transformer network for complex volatile systems under extreme conditions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06273, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[4]

A transient-chaotic autoassociative network (tcan) based on lee oscillators,

R. S. Lee, “A transient-chaotic autoassociative network (tcan) based on lee oscillators,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1228–1243, 2004

work page 2004
[5]

Chaotic type-2 transient-fuzzy deep neuro-oscillatory network (ct2tfdnn) for worldwide financial prediction,

R. Lee, “Chaotic type-2 transient-fuzzy deep neuro-oscillatory network (ct2tfdnn) for worldwide financial prediction,”IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 731–745, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

R. S. Lee,Quantum Finance. Springer, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Logtrans: Providing efficient local-global fusion with transformer and cnn parallel network for biomedical image segmentation,

X. Nie, X. Zhou, Z. Li, L. Wang, X. Lin, and T. Tong, “Logtrans: Providing efficient local-global fusion with transformer and cnn parallel network for biomedical image segmentation,” in2022 IEEE 24th Int Conf on High Performance Computing & Communications; 8th Int Conf on Data Science & Systems; 20th Int Conf on Smart City; 8th Int Conf on Dependability i...

work page 2022
[8]

Transformer in transformer,

K. Han, A. Xiao, E. Wu, J. Guo, C. Xu, and Y . Wang, “Transformer in transformer,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 15 908–15 919, 2021

2021

Show all 21 references

[9]

Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,

H. Zhou, S. Zhang, J. Peng, S. Zhang, J. Li, H. Xiong, and W. Zhang, “Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intel- ligence, vol. 35, no. 12, 2021, pp. 11 106–11 115

2021
[10]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

2017
[11]

Lstm: A search space odyssey,

K. Greff, R. K. Srivastava, J. Koutn ´ık, B. R. Steunebrink, and J. Schmid- huber, “Lstm: A search space odyssey,”IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 2222–2232, 2016

2016
[12]

Are transformers effective for time series forecasting?

A. Zeng, M. Chen, L. Zhang, and Q. Xu, “Are transformers effective for time series forecasting?” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 37, no. 9, 2023, pp. 11 121–11 128

2023
[13]

Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis,

H. Wu, T. Hu, Y . Liu, H. Zhou, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02186, 2022

2022 arXiv
[14]

Trans- formers in time series: A survey,

Q. Wen, T. Zhou, C. Zhang, W. Chen, Z. Ma, J. Yan, and L. Sun, “Trans- formers in time series: A survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07125, 2022

2022 arXiv
[15]

Deep transformer mod- els for time series forecasting: The influenza prevalence case,

N. Wu, B. Green, X. Ben, and S. O’Banion, “Deep transformer mod- els for time series forecasting: The influenza prevalence case,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08317, 2020

2001 arXiv
[16]

Transformers and attention-based networks in quantitative trading: a comprehensive survey,

L. Coelho e Silva, G. d. F. Fonseca, and P. A. L. Castro, “Transformers and attention-based networks in quantitative trading: a comprehensive survey,” inProceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance, 2024, pp. 822–830

2024
[17]

Comparing transformer models for stock selection in quantitative trading,

J. Kwiatkowski and J. A. Chudziak, “Comparing transformer models for stock selection in quantitative trading,” inInternational Conference on Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2025, pp. 239–250

2025
[18]

Stock quantitative prediction analysis method based on deep learning transformer self-attention mechanism,

Y . Li, “Stock quantitative prediction analysis method based on deep learning transformer self-attention mechanism,” inProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Cyber Security and Information Engi- neering, 2022, pp. 907–912

2022
[19]

Performance of single-layer transformers in stock- price trend forecasting,

¨O. E. As ¸irim, “Performance of single-layer transformers in stock- price trend forecasting,” in2025 International Conference on Quantum Photonics, Artificial Intelligence, and Networking (QPAIN). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–6

2025
[20]

Power system instability and chaos,

Y . Yu, H. Jia, P. Li, and J. Su, “Power system instability and chaos,” Electric power systems research, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 187–195, 2003

2003
[21]

Forecasting stock price volatility: New evidence from the garch-midas model,

L. Wang, F. Ma, J. Liu, and L. Yang, “Forecasting stock price volatility: New evidence from the garch-midas model,”International journal of forecasting, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 684–694, 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Dfc-lstm: A novel lstm architecture integrating dynamic fractal gating and chaotic activation for value-at-risk forecasting,

Y . Zeng, B. Tang, Z. Zhou, and R. S. Lee, “Dfc-lstm: A novel lstm architecture integrating dynamic fractal gating and chaotic activation for value-at-risk forecasting,”Mathematics, vol. 13, no. 22, p. 3587, 2025

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Quantformer: from attention to profit with a quantitative transformer trading strategy,

Z. Zhang, B. Chen, S. Zhu, and N. Langren ´e, “Quantformer: from attention to profit with a quantitative transformer trading strategy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00424, 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Cotn: A chaotic oscillatory transformer network for complex volatile systems under extreme conditions,

B. Tang, Y . Zeng, X. Ren, P. Xiao, Y . Zhao, R. Lee, and J. Wu, “Cotn: A chaotic oscillatory transformer network for complex volatile systems under extreme conditions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06273, 2025

work page arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

A transient-chaotic autoassociative network (tcan) based on lee oscillators,

R. S. Lee, “A transient-chaotic autoassociative network (tcan) based on lee oscillators,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1228–1243, 2004

work page 2004

[5] [5]

Chaotic type-2 transient-fuzzy deep neuro-oscillatory network (ct2tfdnn) for worldwide financial prediction,

R. Lee, “Chaotic type-2 transient-fuzzy deep neuro-oscillatory network (ct2tfdnn) for worldwide financial prediction,”IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 731–745, 2019

work page 2019

[6] [6]

R. S. Lee,Quantum Finance. Springer, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Logtrans: Providing efficient local-global fusion with transformer and cnn parallel network for biomedical image segmentation,

X. Nie, X. Zhou, Z. Li, L. Wang, X. Lin, and T. Tong, “Logtrans: Providing efficient local-global fusion with transformer and cnn parallel network for biomedical image segmentation,” in2022 IEEE 24th Int Conf on High Performance Computing & Communications; 8th Int Conf on Data Science & Systems; 20th Int Conf on Smart City; 8th Int Conf on Dependability i...

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Transformer in transformer,

K. Han, A. Xiao, E. Wu, J. Guo, C. Xu, and Y . Wang, “Transformer in transformer,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 15 908–15 919, 2021

2021