Robust and Efficient Noisy-Label Time-Series Classification via Dynamic Time Warping Based Granular Ball Computing

Gouhei Tanaka; Yun Liu; Ziqiang Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Robust and Efficient Noisy-Label Time-Series Classification via Dynamic Time Warping Based Granular Ball Computing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Replacing individual training series with DTW-space granular balls preserves accuracy under label noise and cuts inference comparisons.

desk verdict A genuinely new GBC-in-DTW-space method with consistent but thinly supported gains; the rho-selection ambiguity is the load-bearing problem, not the geometry heuristic. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11704 v1 pith:CZA7ZGBA submitted 2026-08-12 cs.LG cs.AI

Ziqiang Li , Yun Liu , Gouhei Tanaka This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords timeseriesclassificationdynamicwarpinggranularballcomputinglabelnoisenearestneighbormultivariaterobustnessinferenceefficiency

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 tries to establish that granular-ball computing can be carried out directly in the Dynamic Time Warping distance space of raw time series, and that the resulting classifier keeps its accuracy when training labels are randomly corrupted. The practical payoff is a replacement for DTW-based 1-nearest-neighbor classification, which is a strong baseline but inherits every mislabeled neighbor's class and must compare each test series against every training sample. DTW-GBC organizes the training set into a small number of granular balls and labels each test series by its nearest ball, so isolated bad labels are absorbed by the ball's majority vote and only one DTW comparison per ball is needed. On four benchmark datasets with 10% and 20% symmetric label noise, both proposed variants outperform plain DTW on accuracy, weighted F1, and weighted G-mean, while using roughly 38 to 190 comparisons per test sample instead of the full training-set size. If the result holds, it offers a cheaper default that tolerates bad labels for small-to-medium time-series classification collections.

What carries the argument

The central object is the DTW-distance granular ball, a recursive cluster of training time series in the space defined by Dynamic Time Warping. Each ball carries three numbers: a medoid center (the series with smallest summed DTW distance to the others), a mean radius (average DTW distance of its members to that center), and a purity (fraction of members in the majority class). Balls are built by starting from the full training set and splitting any ball whose purity is below $\rho$ and whose size is above $\beta$ into $\kappa$ children, with $\kappa$ either random or derived from the class labels. The load-bearing mechanism is the ball-level scoring rule of Eq. (7), which turns each ball into one representative comparison point, and the purity threshold, which decides when further splitting is worth the extra inference cost.

What would settle it

On clean-label data, count how often the ball chosen by Eq. (7) differs from the ball that contains the test series' actual DTW nearest neighbor; if those disagreements are frequent and line up with prediction errors, the radius-subtraction distance is not a faithful ball distance and the method's benefit would have to be attributed to something else.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the unit of nearest-neighbor classification for time series can be a granular ball rather than an individual series, and that this substitution simultaneously suppresses label noise and lowers inference cost. A ball is represented by a medoid center $C^{(g)}$, a mean radius $r^{(g)}$, and a purity equal to the majority-class fraction; a test series $X^{(i)}$ is scored against the ball by $\mathrm{dist}(X^{(i)},\mathrm{GB}^{(g)}) = d_{\mathrm{DTW}}(X^{(i)},C^{(g)}) - r^{(g)}$, and the ball with the smallest score supplies the label. Balls are grown coarse-to-fine by recursively splitting any sufficiently large ball whose purity falls below a threshold, using either random child centers or a label-informed strategy that keeps the parent center and seeds one child per competing class. In the reported experiments, both variants beat conventional DTW on every dataset and metric at both noise levels, with the label-informed variant generally producing a more compact ball set. The same experiments show that test-time comparisons fall from the number of training series to the number of granular balls, a reduction of roughly one-third to over ninety percent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that subtracting the ball's average radius from the DTW distance to its center produces a correct ordering of which ball a test series belongs to; if DTW distance space is not Euclidean enough for that subtraction to be meaningful, test series can be sent to the wrong balls and the robustness gains would not be explained by the mechanism claimed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under symmetric label noise at rates 10% and 20%, DTW-GBC variants improve accuracy, weighted F1, and weighted G-mean over plain DTW on all four datasets tested.
Per test sample, inference requires one DTW comparison per granular ball rather than per training series; the experiments report reductions of about 33.5% to 92.4% in the number of comparisons.
The label-informed splitting strategy generally uses fewer balls than random splitting while matching or exceeding classification quality, so class structure can be used to compress the representation.
Raising the purity threshold makes both variants generate more balls, but the gain in G-mean saturates or slightly reverses, implying an optimal granularity for the robustness-efficiency trade-off.
Because pairwise DTW computation dominates the one-time training cost, any speedup in computing pairwise DTW would shrink training time without changing the ball-level inference scheme.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the paper's argument is not limited to its four datasets; the same construction should apply to any time-series benchmark where DTW is a competitive distance, and the natural next test is a sweep over the wider benchmark archives the four datasets were drawn from.
Editorial inference: the reported efficiency gain depends on the final number of balls $G$ staying well below the training size $N^{\mathrm{tr}}$; on high-class-count or strongly impure datasets, a strict purity threshold could push $G$ close to $N^{\mathrm{tr}}$ and erase the advantage, a worst case the paper does not quantify.
Editorial inference: replacing the random seeds in label-informed splitting with deterministic class medoids would make the method reproducible and probably more stable under high noise, but the paper only tests random seeds.
Editorial inference: if the radius-subtracted ball distance of Eq. (7) is a faithful ordering, the same distance could serve other time-series tasks such as clustering and anomaly scoring, which the paper lists as future work rather than evaluating.

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

The new thing here is real: granular balls built directly in DTW distance space, with a label-informed medoid splitting rule, plus a granule-level 1-NN rule that cuts inference comparisons substantially. The experiments are internally consistent—both variants beat vanilla DTW 1-NN on all four datasets at both noise levels, and the efficiency numbers are concrete. That descriptive claim holds.

What the paper does well: the idea is simple, clearly explained, and plausible. The recursive splitting criterion (purity threshold, min size) is standard GBC machinery, but applying it to DTW distances rather than encoded features is a legitimate step forward for time-series work. The label-informed strategy shows a modest but repeatable advantage over random splitting in most settings, which is a useful empirical finding. The complexity analysis is honest: training is dominated by the O(N^2 T^2) pairwise DTW computation, and inference scales with the number of balls rather than training samples.

Soft spots, in proportion. The weak baseline is the biggest one. The paper compares only against vanilla DTW 1-NN, while citing robust TSC methods (CTW, Scale-Teaching) in the related work without benchmarking them. That leaves the magnitude of the robustness claim unanchored; noisy-label TSC has a literature with stronger baselines. The stress-test concern about rho is legitimate. Section 5.2 says rho is 'searched' over a grid, but only kappa for DTW-GBC-R is explicitly cross-validated. Section 5.4 then reports 'best performances' and Figure 2 is captioned as corresponding to the best-performing settings. If rho was selected by test-set accuracy per dataset and noise level, the reported gains are optimistic upper bounds. The paper's own limitation paragraph concedes that kappa selection on noisy training labels is fragile; rho is at least as fragile, since the cross-validation labels themselves are corrupted. Eq. (7)—distance to a ball as DTW-to-medoid minus radius—is a heuristic and the paper doesn't justify why that ordering is faithful in non-Euclidean DTW space. That bothered the reader, and it is a fair point, but I think it is secondary to the tuning ambiguity: even if Eq. (7) is imperfect, the method still works as a consistent heuristic, whereas the numerical support for the headline claim depends directly on how rho was chosen. No code or data are released, which makes the comparison harder to audit.

Who this is for: people working on time-series classification under label noise, or on granular-ball methods for non-Euclidean data. It deserves a serious referee; the core idea is novel enough and the results are promising, but the tuning protocol and baselines need to be fixed before the claims are credible. A good referee report should push for pre-registered or at least explicitly described rho selection (cross-validation on noisy training labels), comparison with at least one robust TSC baseline, and code release.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, but condition acceptance on addressing the model-selection ambiguity and strengthening the baselines. The paper is a reasonable workshop-to-conference submission as is; with those fixes it could be a solid journal paper.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DTW-based Granular Ball Computing (DTW-GBC), a method that constructs granular balls of training time series directly in the DTW distance space and classifies test samples by 1-NN over these balls. Two splitting strategies are introduced: random splitting (DTW-GBC-R) and label-informed splitting (DTW-GBC-L). Experiments on four benchmark datasets under symmetric label noise at rates 0.1 and 0.2 report that both variants consistently outperform vanilla DTW 1-NN in accuracy, weighted F1, and weighted G-mean, while requiring substantially fewer DTW comparisons at inference. The paper also provides a complexity analysis showing inference cost proportional to the number of granular balls rather than the number of training samples.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper offers a conceptually simple way to reduce the sensitivity of DTW-based nearest-neighbor classifiers to label noise and to lower inference cost, with a clean complexity analysis and evaluation on four datasets from two archives. The multiple metrics and ten noisy-label replications are appropriate, and the explicit acknowledgment of the fragility of hyperparameter selection on noisy labels is commendable. However, the significance is currently limited by the narrow baseline set, the unsupported distance-to-ball formula, and an underspecified hyperparameter-selection protocol that directly affects the reported numerical gains.

major comments (4)

[Section 5.2 and Section 5.4] The hyperparameter selection protocol for rho is not specified. The text states only that rho was 'searched' over {0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1} and that Tables 3-4 report 'best performances', while Figure 2 is captioned as 'corresponding to the best performances'. If rho (or any other hyperparameter) was selected by test-set performance per dataset and noise level, the reported accuracy gains are upper bounds over the rho grid rather than expected performance under a reproducible model-selection rule. Please specify exactly how rho is chosen: for example, five-fold cross-validation on the training set as done for kappa, or a fixed rule. The limitation paragraph in Section 6 concedes that tuning kappa on noisy labels is fragile; rho deserves the same explicit treatment.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (7)] The distance from a test series to a granular ball is defined as the DTW distance to the ball medoid minus the mean radius. No justification is given that subtracting the radius preserves the relevance ordering of balls in DTW space, which is generally non-Euclidean and can violate metric properties. This formula is load-bearing because it determines which ball is selected for prediction. Please provide a theoretical justification or an empirical evaluation comparing Eq. (7) with alternatives such as medoid-only distance or average distance to all ball members, and report whether the conclusions in Tables 3-4 are sensitive to this choice.
[Section 2.1 and Section 5.4] The paper's headline claim of robustness to noisy labels is evaluated only against vanilla DTW 1-NN. The related-work section cites modern noisy-label time-series classifiers such as CTW and Scale-teaching, but no such method is included in the experiments. To support the broader claim implied by the title, please add at least one recent noisy-label TSC baseline, or explicitly restrict the claim to 'more robust than DTW-based 1-NN'. Without this, the quantitative evidence does not distinguish the proposed method from a simple averaging effect over granular balls.
[Algorithm 1 and Section 5.2] Both splitting strategies use random center selection, but the experiments report standard deviations only over the ten label-noise realizations, not over the randomness in ball construction. Since the random strategy is a core contribution, the variability of the results due to the random choices is unknown. Please report results over multiple random seeds or fix the random seeds and state this explicitly, so that the reported means and standard deviations are reproducible.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3 heading] The heading 'Dynamic Time Wraping based Granular Ball Computing' contains a typo; it should be 'Warping'.
[Section 4] The maximum splitting depth D is introduced in the complexity analysis without a formal definition. Please state how it is bounded in practice, e.g., in terms of the number of leaves or the stopping criterion in Eq. (6).
[Figure 3] The figure legend uses '#Balls' without clarifying that this is the average number of generated granular balls over the ten noisy-label realizations; please state this explicitly in the caption or axis labels.
[Table 1] For JapaneseVowels, the '#Timesteps' entry is '7-29'; please clarify that sequences have variable lengths and state how DTW handles this, since the notation T(i) in Section 3 already permits variable length.
[Section 5.4] The paper reports only the number of DTW comparisons as an efficiency measure. Reporting wall-clock training and inference times would make the efficiency claim more concrete, given the substantial pairwise-DTW training cost.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claim is an empirical comparison; hyperparameter selection is standard and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not a derivation but an experimental evaluation: the DTW-GBC variants are compared with DTW 1-NN under symmetric label noise on four benchmark datasets. Equations (3)-(7) are definitions of the granular-ball center, radius, purity, splitting rule, and ball-to-sample distance; they do not encode the reported accuracy or efficiency gains, and no fitted constant is renamed as a prediction. Hyperparameter selection is described in Section 5.2: 'we fixed beta to 1 for two DTW-GBC based methods and searched rho in {0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1}', and for DTW-GBC-R 'the optimal value was selected using five-fold cross-validation on the training set.' The limitation paragraph concedes that selecting kappa on noisy training data may be sensitive to a particular noise realization, which is an honest weakness of the evaluation rather than circularity. The self-citations in the paper are background references to the authors' earlier work on echo state networks and do not supply a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The only notable concern is that the rho-selection protocol is under-specified, so the reported 'best-performing' numbers could depend on undisclosed model selection; that is a reproducibility/correctness risk, not a circularity of the kind where the conclusion is equivalent to the input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method introduces two hyperparameters (rho and kappa) plus a fixed beta, and depends on the unverified distance-to-ball formula in Eq. (7) and on the heuristic splitting rules. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)

purity threshold rho = searched over {0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1}; exact chosen value per dataset not reported
Controls when a granular ball is split. The paper says it is searched but does not specify the selection criterion (cross-validation vs test set), and the chosen values are not listed.
number of child balls kappa = 2 for DTW-GBC-R (selected via cross-validation); for DTW-GBC-L, kappa is implicitly the number of classes but never…
Controls the branching factor of recursive splitting. For DTW-GBC-R it is selected by five-fold cross-validation per dataset; for DTW-GBC-L it is implied by the label-informed strategy.
minimum ball size beta = 1
Fixed by hand; a ball with one sample is never split.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption DTW distance is an appropriate and faithful similarity measure for the time series in the four datasets
The entire method and baseline rest on DTW as the distance. Standard in TSC, but the paper does not justify it for these specific datasets beyond references.
ad hoc to paper Subtracting the mean radius in Eq. (7) yields a distance-to-ball that preserves the relevance ordering of granular balls
The distance definition is introduced without derivation or empirical validation. If DTW distances are highly non-Euclidean, the formula may misorder balls and change predictions.
domain assumption Randomly selected medoids (DTW-GBC-R) or label-informed centers (DTW-GBC-L) produce sufficiently pure and compact balls after recursive splitting
The splitting algorithms are heuristics; the paper does not analyze convergence or worst-case ball quality. The reported improvements depend on these heuristics working on the chosen datasets.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust and Efficient Noisy-Label Time-Series Classification via Dynamic Time Warping Based Granular Ball Computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZA7ZGBA

@misc{pith2026260811704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust and Efficient Noisy-Label Time-Series Classification via Dynamic Time Warping Based Granular Ball Computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZA7ZGBA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11704}
}

read the original abstract

Dynamic Time Warping (DTW)-based Nearest-Neighbor (NN) classifiers are effective for time-series classification but are vulnerable to mislabeled training samples and require numerous DTW computations during inference. We propose DTW-based Granular Ball Computing (DTW-GBC), which organizes temporally similar training samples into granular balls and performs classification at the granule level. We further develop two granular-ball construction strategies for DTW-GBC. Experiments on four benchmark datasets with symmetric label noise show that the two DTW-GBC variants generally mitigate the performance degradation caused by label noise while requiring substantially fewer comparisons than DTW-based 1-NN during inference. These findings suggest that DTW-GBC provides a favorable balance between classification robustness and inference efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11704 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The average numbers of 1-NN comparisons per test sample corresponding to the best performances for each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The average weighted G-mean and average number of generated granular balls of DTW-GBC-R and DTW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Time series classification: A review of algorithms and implementations,

J. Faouzi, “Time series classification: A review of algorithms and implementations,”Machine Learning (Emerg- ing Trends and Applications), 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Classification in the presence of label noise: a survey

B. Frénay, M. Verleysenet al., “Classification in the presence of label noise: a survey.”IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 845–869, 2014

work page 2014
[3]

CTW: Confident time-warping for time-series label-noise learn- ing

P. Ma, Z. Liu, J. Zheng, L. Wang, and Q. Ma, “CTW: Confident time-warping for time-series label-noise learn- ing.” inIJCAI, 2023, pp. 4046–4054

work page 2023
[4]

Scale-teaching: Robust multi-scale training for time series classification with noisy labels,

Z. Liu, D. Chen, W. Pei, Q. Maet al., “Scale-teaching: Robust multi-scale training for time series classification with noisy labels,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 33 726–33 757, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

A review on distance based time series classification,

A. Abanda, U. Mori, and J. A. Lozano, “A review on distance based time series classification,”Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 378–412, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition,

H. Sakoe and S. Chiba, “Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition,”IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 43–49, 1978

1978
[7]

Granular-ball computing: An efficient, robust, and interpretable adaptive multi-granularity representation and computation method,

S. Xia, G. Wang, X. Gao, and X. Lian, “Granular-ball computing: An efficient, robust, and interpretable adaptive multi-granularity representation and computation method,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11171, 2023

arXiv 2023
[8]

Granular ball computing classifiers for efficient, scalable and robust learning,

S. Xia, Y . Liu, X. Ding, G. Wang, H. Yu, and Y . Luo, “Granular ball computing classifiers for efficient, scalable and robust learning,”Information Sciences, vol. 483, pp. 136–152, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 19 references

[9]

The great time series classification bake off: a review and experimental evaluation of recent algorithmic advances,

A. Bagnall, J. Lines, A. Bostrom, J. Large, and E. Keogh, “The great time series classification bake off: a review and experimental evaluation of recent algorithmic advances,”Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 606–660, 2017

2017
[10]

Searching and mining trillions of time series subsequences under dynamic time warping,

T. Rakthanmanon, B. Campana, A. Mueen, G. Batista, B. Westover, Q. Zhu, J. Zakaria, and E. Keogh, “Searching and mining trillions of time series subsequences under dynamic time warping,” inProceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and d...

2012
[11]

An efficient spectral clustering algorithm based on granular-ball,

J. Xie, W. Kong, S. Xia, G. Wang, and X. Gao, “An efficient spectral clustering algorithm based on granular-ball,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2023

2023
[12]

Robust and efficient learning with granular ball support vector regression,

R. Rastogi, A. Bisht, S. Kumar, and S. Chandra, “Robust and efficient learning with granular ball support vector regression,”Neural Networks, p. 109174, 2026

2026
[13]

Multi-reservoir echo state networks with sequence resampling for nonlinear time-series prediction,

Z. Li and G. Tanaka, “Multi-reservoir echo state networks with sequence resampling for nonlinear time-series prediction,”Neurocomputing, vol. 467, pp. 115–129, 2022

2022
[14]

Efficient time series clustering from multiscale reservoir dynamics with granular-ball anchoring graph optimization,

Y . Wang, L. Shen, S. Xia, and Y . Wang, “Efficient time series clustering from multiscale reservoir dynamics with granular-ball anchoring graph optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.12077, 2026

2026 arXiv
[15]

Finding time series anomalies using granular-ball vector data description,

L. Shen, L. Peng, R. Liu, S. Xia, and Y . Liu, “Finding time series anomalies using granular-ball vector data description,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 40, no. 30, 2026, pp. 25 295– 25 303

2026
[16]

Nearest neighbor pattern classification,

T. Cover and P. Hart, “Nearest neighbor pattern classification,”IEEE transactions on information theory, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 21–27, 1967

1967
[17]

The ucr time series archive,

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 Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1293–1305, 2019

2019
[18]

The multiverse of time series machine learning: an archive for multivariate time series classifi- cation,

M. Middlehurst, A. Rushbrooke, A. Ismail-Fawaz, M. Devanne, G. Forestier, A. Dempster, G. I. Webb, C. Holder, and A. Bagnall, “The multiverse of time series machine learning: an archive for multivariate time series classifi- cation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20352, 2026

2026
[19]

Confident learning: Estimating uncertainty in dataset labels,

C. Northcutt, L. Jiang, and I. Chuang, “Confident learning: Estimating uncertainty in dataset labels,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 70, pp. 1373–1411, 2021. 9

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Time series classification: A review of algorithms and implementations,

J. Faouzi, “Time series classification: A review of algorithms and implementations,”Machine Learning (Emerg- ing Trends and Applications), 2022

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Classification in the presence of label noise: a survey

B. Frénay, M. Verleysenet al., “Classification in the presence of label noise: a survey.”IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 845–869, 2014

work page 2014

[3] [3]

CTW: Confident time-warping for time-series label-noise learn- ing

P. Ma, Z. Liu, J. Zheng, L. Wang, and Q. Ma, “CTW: Confident time-warping for time-series label-noise learn- ing.” inIJCAI, 2023, pp. 4046–4054

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Scale-teaching: Robust multi-scale training for time series classification with noisy labels,

Z. Liu, D. Chen, W. Pei, Q. Maet al., “Scale-teaching: Robust multi-scale training for time series classification with noisy labels,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 33 726–33 757, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [5]

A review on distance based time series classification,

A. Abanda, U. Mori, and J. A. Lozano, “A review on distance based time series classification,”Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 378–412, 2019

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition,

H. Sakoe and S. Chiba, “Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition,”IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 43–49, 1978

1978

[7] [7]

Granular-ball computing: An efficient, robust, and interpretable adaptive multi-granularity representation and computation method,

S. Xia, G. Wang, X. Gao, and X. Lian, “Granular-ball computing: An efficient, robust, and interpretable adaptive multi-granularity representation and computation method,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11171, 2023

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Granular ball computing classifiers for efficient, scalable and robust learning,

S. Xia, Y . Liu, X. Ding, G. Wang, H. Yu, and Y . Luo, “Granular ball computing classifiers for efficient, scalable and robust learning,”Information Sciences, vol. 483, pp. 136–152, 2019

work page 2019