Cross-device Zero-shot Label Transfer via Alignment of Time Series Foundation Model Embeddings

Arijit Sehanobish; Neal G. Ravindra

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 14 references

Cross-device Zero-shot Label Transfer via Alignment of Time Series Foundation Model Embeddings

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Adversarial alignment of time-series foundation-model embeddings transfers clinical labels to consumer wearables without paired data.

desk verdict A reasonable in-silico alignment exercise that is over-sold as cross-device transfer; the simulated target is unvalidated, and the evidence is too thin to support the headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06966 v1 pith:KRM6W2PJ submitted 2025-08-22 eess.SP cs.AIcs.LG

Neal G. Ravindra , Arijit Sehanobish This is my paper

classification eess.SPcs.AIcs.LG

keywords zero-shotlabeltransferdomainadaptationtime-seriesfoundationmodelsadversarialalignmentwearableaccelerometrygestationalagepredictionactigraphyconsumerwearables

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

Clinical-grade actigraphy carries medically validated labels, consumer wearables like the Apple Watch do not, and paired recordings from both devices on the same people are rarely available. The paper claims this gap can be closed without paired data by projecting raw accelerometry from both domains into the embedding space of a pre-trained time-series foundation model—a network trained on many types of time series—and then adversarially aligning the two embedding distributions. A simulator degrades clinical signals with noise, smoothing, and masking to mimic a lower-quality consumer device, and a lightweight adapter plus domain discriminator force source and target embeddings to mix. In a gestational-age prediction task, the unaligned baseline's target error more than doubles, while the aligned model's target error stays nearly identical to its source error. If the simulation is faithful, the framework offers a route for validated clinical labels to reach consumer-scale wearable data.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is adversarial alignment of time-series foundation-model embeddings. A frozen pre-trained TSFM (Chronos, a transformer trained to forecast diverse time series) maps raw patches from both domains to 1024-dimensional embeddings; a trainable bottleneck adapter projects these to a 128-dimensional space; and a domain discriminator tries to tell source from target while the adapter tries to fool it, using an LSGAN loss. This game collapses the two distributions into one space, so a classifier trained on source labels alone can be applied to target embeddings. The other load-bearing piece is the simulator: it adds adaptive Gaussian noise until a pre-trained patient-identifier

What would settle it

Collect a small set of participants who wear both a clinical actigraph and an Apple Watch simultaneously, run the aligned model on the real watch patches, and compare gestational-age MAE to the reported target-domain value. If the real-device error reverts to the baseline's doubled level, the simulator is not a faithful stand-in and the zero-shot transfer claim does not survive on real hardware.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the semantic embeddings of a general-purpose time-series foundation model are a usable substrate for cross-device domain adaptation, without any paired data. The authors embed each source and simulated target patch with a frozen Chronos model, then train a bottleneck adapter to fool a domain discriminator, using an LSGAN objective, while a classifier on the aligned source embeddings predicts gestational age in weekly bins. Their central result is quantitative: the source-only baseline suffers a catastrophic collapse on the target domain, its mean absolute error more than doubling, whereas the aligned model holds target MAE near its source level. Domain-mixin

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated consumer-wearable signals produced by noise, smoothing, masking, and identity obfuscation faithfully match the real signal characteristics of a device like the Apple Watch, since the method is evaluated only on that simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Clinicians and researchers can deploy validated actigraphy-based models to consumer wearables without collecting labeled watch data or paired same-subject recordings.
The same frozen TSFM backbone and adapter could be swapped into other device-pair scenarios where only one side has labels, provided a simulator or a small unlabeled target sample exists.
Domain-mixing entropy and adjusted Rand index give a practical check for whether alignment has succeeded before deployment.
Only a small MLP adapter needs to be trained on top of a frozen large backbone, so the transfer step is computationally light and avoids fine-tuning the foundation model.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper does not run is validation on a real paired dataset; the claim currently rests entirely on the simulated target, so a small same-subject actigraph-plus-watch study would be the decisive test.
The simulator's identity-obfuscation loop could double as a privacy tool for sharing clinical accelerometry, since it intentionally erases patient-specific signatures from the signal.
The approach's sensitivity to the anonymization threshold and noise schedule in the simulator is untested; tuning those parameters against a small real-device holdout would likely change transfer performance.
If the TSFM embeddings are already partly invariant to device identity, the adapter may be doing less work than the paper suggests; comparing alignment difficulty across different foundation-model backbones would separate the model's contribution from the adapter's.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Here's my take on 2509.06966. The paper is a clean in-silico exercise: it takes a frozen Chronos TSFM, adds a lightweight adversarial adapter, and shows that alignment rescues gestational-age regression on a synthetically degraded version of clinical actigraphy patches. That's a reasonable thing to demonstrate, and the writing is clear. The patient-identifier-guided simulator is a modest but sensible idea—degrade patches until a patient-ID model loses confidence, to approximate the loss of person-specific signal in consumer devices. The authors also honestly note that prospective validation is needed.

But the central claim, that this framework transfers labels from actigraphy to consumer wearables like the Apple Watch, is not supported. The target domain is generated from the source patches using the same embedding machinery. The patient identifier is trained on TSFM embeddings, and the simulator's stopping rule is exactly when that identifier fails. So the 'domain shift' is defined by the same representation used for alignment. That's not inherently circular—the alignment still has to work—but it is not an independent measurement of cross-device shift. No real Apple Watch or other consumer device data appears anywhere in the experiments. The Discussion's 'future work will need to prospectively validate' is a meaningful concession, but the abstract and introduction sell it as a demonstrated transfer.

The results section also under-delivers: no numeric MAE values, no error bars, no statistical tests, just a figure and two domain-mixing metrics. The claim that target MAE is 'nearly identical' to source can't be checked. For a paper whose entire evidence is a simulation, that level of reporting is thin.

Is there anything genuinely new? The specific combination of a frozen TSFM with adversarial alignment for a regression label-transfer task is not in the cited literature. It's a straightforward extension, but it's not identical to prior work. The simulator is a small new component. I'd credit that.

Who benefits from this paper? Researchers working on domain adaptation for wearables who want a simple baseline or an example of using TSFM embeddings. But as it stands, the evaluation doesn't justify the cross-device claim. A serious referee would need to see real paired device data, or at least a simulator validated against a mechanical-shaker or simultaneous-wear dataset like the one cited from White et al.

My recommendation: don't reject on sight; send it to review. The idea is coherent and the paper is honest about its limitations, but the central empirical claim needs substantial rework. If the only available evidence is simulated, the paper should be framed as an in-silico feasibility study, not a cross-device transfer demonstration.

Best,

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an adversarial alignment framework for transferring clinical labels from a source domain (clinical actigraphy) to a target domain (consumer wearables such as the Apple Watch) without paired data. The method embeds both domains with a frozen time-series foundation model (Chronos), applies a lightweight trainable adapter, and uses an LSGAN-style discriminator to make source and target embeddings indistinguishable. Because no real consumer wearable data are available, the target domain is generated by a simulator that iteratively degrades source patches until a patient-identification model—trained on the same TSFM embeddings—can no longer identify the subject. Experiments on gestational age prediction report that adversarial alignment improves domain-mixing metrics and rescues target-domain mean absolute error relative to a source-only baseline. No real consumer wearable data are used anywhere in the evaluation.

Significance. If the claimed transfer worked on real consumer wearables, the framework would be practically valuable: it proposes a lightweight way to leverage rich clinical labels on ubiquitous devices. The central idea of aligning TSFM embeddings rather than raw signals is timely and the adapter/discriminator design is simple enough to be deployed. However, the evidence is entirely based on a synthetic target domain constructed from the source and defined through the same embedding machinery used for alignment. There is no independent validation on any real device, and the paper admits this in the Discussion ('Future work will need to prospectively validate these findings'). The reported quantitative results also lack numerical detail, error bars, and statistical tests. As it stands, the paper is more a proposal with a proof-of-concept on a simulated corruption process than a validated demonstration of cross-device label transfer.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.1 / Algorithm 1] The target domain is not an independent device domain. X_T is generated by corrupting X_S until a patient-identification model C—trained on E(X_S), the same TSFM embeddings used for alignment—loses confidence. The domain shift is therefore internally constructed relative to the source representation and the embedding machinery itself. Real consumer devices (e.g., Apple Watch) involve different sampling rates, MEMS accelerometer characteristics, on-device preprocessing, and missing-data patterns, none of which are shown to be captured by the simulator. Consequently, the near-equal MAE on the simulated target reported in Section 3 does not demonstrate transfer to any real device. The Discussion's statement that future prospective validation is needed is an explicit acknowledgment of this load-bearing gap.
[Section 3 / Figure 3 / Table 1] No actual MAE values, confidence intervals, or error bars are reported. The text states only that the baseline MAE 'more than doubling' and the aligned MAE is 'nearly identical' to source performance. Without numeric values and repeated trials, the central quantitative claim cannot be evaluated or reproduced. Table 1 reports domain-mixing entropy and ARI but no standard deviations. Please provide the actual numbers, error bars, and a significance test comparing baseline and aligned target performance.
[Section 2.2 / Eq. (2)] The notation is inconsistent. The text defines E′ as the frozen backbone plus a trainable adapter, but then refers to the adapter itself as E′. Equation (2) writes D = E′(z) ∈ 1(source), which is not a well-formed equation for a discriminator. The mapping should be made explicit, e.g., z' = A(E(X)) for an adapter A, and D(z') yielding a domain probability. Also, the symbol C is used for the task classifier, the patient-identification scorer, and appears in Figure 1 for the classifier; this ambiguity should be resolved.
[Section 2.3 / hyperparameters] The method depends on λ (adversarial/classification balance), δ (anonymization threshold), σ (noise parameter), N_max (max iterations), and the adapter bottleneck dimension, but none of these are specified and no sensitivity analysis is provided. Because λ directly controls the trade-off between domain invariance and task performance, the absence of an ablation or stability analysis weakens the empirical contribution. Without this, it is unclear whether the reported success is robust or a narrow tuning artifact.

minor comments (5)

[Algorithm 1] The smoothing, magnitude rescaling, and random masking steps are described only verbally. Their parameters should be specified for reproducibility, and the threshold δ should be given.
[Abstract / Introduction] The abstract claims the framework 'facilitates label transfer across device type.' This should be qualified as 'simulated consumer-grade target' rather than implying validation on an actual device such as the Apple Watch.
[Figures 2 and 3] The figures lack axis labels and units. For Figure 3, include the exact MAE values and error bars on the plot. For Figure 2, define the colors and styles in the caption.
[Terminology] The term 'zero-shot' is potentially misleading: the adversarial training stage uses unlabeled target data, so the method is a form of unsupervised domain adaptation. Clarify that 'zero-shot' refers to the absence of target labels, not the absence of target data.
[Related work] The sentence citing White III et al. (2024) says raw accelerometry between devices can be comparable but that significant domain shifts persist. The connection between these two observations and the need for embedding-space alignment should be stated more explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Simulated target is generated from source in the same TSFM embedding space, so the 'target MAE' is a consistency check on source-derived data, not validated cross-device transfer.

fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1 (Algorithm 1) and Section 3 (Results/Fig. 3)]
"Therefore, to bridge this gap without paired data, we develop a generator to simulate a realistic, unlabeled target domain. For each source sample XS, our generator creates a corresponding consumer-grade representation, XT ... Our target domain data (XT ) is generated using the simulator described in Section 2.1. ... maintaining a low MAE on the target domain that is nearly identical to its source domain performance. This demonstrates a successful transfer of predictive capability."

The 'target domain' is not an independent device domain: Algorithm 1 transforms each source patch XS into XT by noise, smoothing, rescaling, and masking. Thus YT=YS by construction, and the reported target MAE is computed on synthetic inputs derived from the same source data used for training. The zero-shot transfer claim is therefore supported only by a self-consistency check on a simulated corruption of the source, not by predictions on real consumer-wearable data. The paper's own Discussion concedes 'Future work will need to prospectively validate these findings.'
self definitional [Section 2.1, 'Implementation details' and Algorithm 1]
"For our scoring model, we train a patient identification classifier, C, using the embeddings from our TSFM feature extractor. ... the generator iteratively perturbs a source patch with noise until the scorer's confidence in correctly identifying the patient falls below a fixed threshold, thereby emulating the feature degradation expected from proprietary consumer devices."

The target distribution is defined by degrading source until a classifier trained on the same TSFM embeddings (E(XS)) fails. The subsequent adversarial alignment operates on those same TSFM embeddings, so the domain shift being removed is one that was constructed inside the embedding space by the authors. The alignment's success is therefore evidence about an internally generated shift, not about an independently measured Apple Watch signal chain; no real consumer-device data appears in the experiments.

full rationale

The paper is transparent that no paired consumer-wearable data is used and that the target domain is generated by Algorithm 1. That transparency avoids deception but does not remove the circularity: the central evidence for 'successful transfer of predictive capability' is an MAE computed on XT, which is a function of XS with the same labels YS. The adversarial alignment is also performed in the same TSFM embedding space used to train the patient-identification scorer that drives the simulator, so the domain gap is internally manufactured rather than externally measured. This makes the target-domain 'prediction' a consistency check on source-derived synthetic data rather than a zero-shot transfer to a real device. There is no self-citation chain or uniqueness-theorem issue; the Ravindra et al. citation is a legitimate data source. Score 6 reflects that the central evaluation reduces by construction to a fitted/simulated input, though the framework itself has independent algorithmic content and the limitation is explicitly acknowledged.

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

The central claim depends on a set of unvalidated domain assumptions about the fidelity of the simulated target and the relevance of TSFM embeddings to the clinical task. The free parameters controlling the simulator and adversarial balance are not reported, making the contribution heavily reliant on unspecified choices.

free parameters (4)

lambda (adversarial/classification balance)
Hyperparameter balancing the classification and adversarial losses, not reported.
delta (anonymization threshold)
Threshold for patient identifiability reduction in Algorithm 1, not reported.
sigma (noise parameter)
Noise scale for adaptive perturbation in Algorithm 1, not reported.
Nmax (max iterations)
Maximum iterations for the anonymization loop, not reported.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The simulated degradation (noise, smoothing, masking, identity obfuscation) accurately emulates consumer wearable signal properties.
Section 2.1 and Algorithm 1 assume the generator produces realistic consumer-grade data; no validation against real device data is provided.
domain assumption The patient identification model's confidence drop corresponds to the loss of person-specific features in consumer devices.
Section 2.1 uses the scorer as an anonymization scorer without evidence that consumer devices obscure identity in this manner.
domain assumption Chronos TSFM embeddings capture features relevant to gestational age prediction.
The paper assumes forecasting-oriented representations are useful for clinical regression; no analysis is provided.
domain assumption The source actigraphy dataset (Ravindra et al. 2023) is a valid labeled clinical dataset.
The paper relies on a previous publication by one of the authors; no independent validation is cited here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-device Zero-shot Label Transfer via Alignment of Time Series Foundation Model Embeddings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KRM6W2PJ

@misc{pith2026250906966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-device Zero-shot Label Transfer via Alignment of Time Series Foundation Model Embeddings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KRM6W2PJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06966}
}

read the original abstract

High-quality, medically validated labels exist for clinical actigraphy data but not for ubiquitous consumer wearables like the Apple Watch. Manually labeling wearables data is expensive and doesn't scale. This paper offers a novel framework that transfers valuable labels from a source domain (e.g., actigraphy) to a target domain (e.g., Apple Watch) without requiring paired data. Instead of working with raw time-series signals, we project both domains into a shared latent embedding space using time-series foundation models (TSFMs) and develop a new framework to align the cross-device representations. Our method, Adversarial Alignment of TSFM Embeddings forces the distributions of source and target embeddings to align within this space, facilitating label transfer across device type.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06966 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** UMAP projection of embeddings from the baseline model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Domain Alignment Rescues Prediction Performance of Label Transfer. The plot compares Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for GA prediction on the source and target domains for the Baseline (Source Only) model versus our full Aligned model. Results. We compare our method against a "Source Only" baseline, where the adversarial alignment is disabled. Figure 3 shows the key results. The baseline model performs reasonably on th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Chronos: Learning the language of time series

Abdullah Anas, Caner Turkmen, Ingmar Tork, Syama Sundar Rangapuram, Michael Bohlke-Schneider, Jasper Zschiegner, David C Maddix, Luigi Stella, and Tim Januschowski. Chronos: Learning the language of time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07815, 2024

arXiv 2024
[2]

Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data

Nick Erickson, Jonas Mueller, Alexander Shirkov, Hang Zhang, Pedro Larroy, Mu Li, and Alexander Smola. Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06505, 2020

arXiv 2003
[3]

Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp

Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790--2799. PMLR, 2019

2019
[4]

Identifying Linearly-Mixed Causal Representations from Multi-Node Interventions

Dima Kiyasseh, D Zhang, Andrea Pan, K Damle, F Liu, Y Liu, C Adithasirisan, V Thambawita, S Hicks, H Rivas, et al. Scaling self-supervision for wearables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02695, 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[5]

Least squares generative adversarial networks

Xudong Mao, Qing Li, Haoran Xie, Raymond YK Lau, Zhen Wang, and Stephen Paul Smolley. Least squares generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2794--2802, 2017

work page 2017
[6]

Scaling wearable foundation models

Girish Narayanswamy, Xin Liu, Kumar Ayush, Yuzhe Yang, Xuhai Xu, Shun Liao, Jake Garrison, Shyam Tailor, Jake Sunshine, Yun Liu, et al. Scaling wearable foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13638, 2024

arXiv 2024
[7]

The strongly regular twisted $D_{5,5}(q)$ graph

Yuqi Nie, Nam H Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam. A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17289, 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[8]

N-beats: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting

Boris N Oreshkin, Dmitri Carpov, Nicolas Chapados, and Yoshua Bengio. N-beats: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10437, 2019

arXiv 1905

Show all 14 references

[9]

Investigating compositional reasoning in time series foundation models

Willa Potosnak, Cristian Challu, Mononito Goswami, Kin G Olivares, Micha Wili \'n ski, Nina \.Z ukowska, and Artur Dubrawski. Investigating compositional reasoning in time series foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06037, 2025

2025 arXiv
[10]

Deep representation learning identifies associations between physical activity and sleep patterns during pregnancy and prematurity

Neal G Ravindra, Camilo Espinosa, Elo \" se Berson, Thanaphong Phongpreecha, Peinan Zhao, Martin Becker, Alan L Chang, Sayane Shome, Ivana Mari \'c , Davide De Francesco, et al. Deep representation learning identifies associations between physical activity and sleep patterns d...

2023
[11]

Attention is all you need

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 5998--6008, 2017

2017
[12]

Comparison of raw accelerometry data from actigraph, apple watch, garmin, and fitbit using a mechanical shaker table

James W White III, Olivia L Finnegan, Nick Tindall, Srihari Nelakuditi, David E Brown III, Russell R Pate, Gregory J Welk, Massimiliano de Zambotti, Rahul Ghosal, Yuan Wang, et al. Comparison of raw accelerometry data from actigraph, apple watch, garmin, and fitbit using a mec...

2024
[13]

Ts2vec: Towards universal representation of time series

Zhi-Bin Yue, Yujia Wang, Qun-Ce Sun, Dong-Mei Huang, Rimple Chakravorty, Mou-Ping Chen, Tu-Hao Chiang, and Li T-H. Ts2vec: Towards universal representation of time series. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36(8), pages 8980--8988, 2022

2022
[14]

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

Haoyi Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Jieqi Peng, Shuai Zhang, Jianxin Li, Hui Xiong, and Wancai Zhang. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 35 0 (12): 0 11106--11115, 2021

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Chronos: Learning the language of time series

Abdullah Anas, Caner Turkmen, Ingmar Tork, Syama Sundar Rangapuram, Michael Bohlke-Schneider, Jasper Zschiegner, David C Maddix, Luigi Stella, and Tim Januschowski. Chronos: Learning the language of time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07815, 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data

Nick Erickson, Jonas Mueller, Alexander Shirkov, Hang Zhang, Pedro Larroy, Mu Li, and Alexander Smola. Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06505, 2020

arXiv 2003

[3] [3]

Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp

Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790--2799. PMLR, 2019

2019

[4] [4]

Identifying Linearly-Mixed Causal Representations from Multi-Node Interventions

Dima Kiyasseh, D Zhang, Andrea Pan, K Damle, F Liu, Y Liu, C Adithasirisan, V Thambawita, S Hicks, H Rivas, et al. Scaling self-supervision for wearables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02695, 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

Least squares generative adversarial networks

Xudong Mao, Qing Li, Haoran Xie, Raymond YK Lau, Zhen Wang, and Stephen Paul Smolley. Least squares generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2794--2802, 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Scaling wearable foundation models

Girish Narayanswamy, Xin Liu, Kumar Ayush, Yuzhe Yang, Xuhai Xu, Shun Liao, Jake Garrison, Shyam Tailor, Jake Sunshine, Yun Liu, et al. Scaling wearable foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13638, 2024

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

The strongly regular twisted $D_{5,5}(q)$ graph

Yuqi Nie, Nam H Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam. A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17289, 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

N-beats: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting

Boris N Oreshkin, Dmitri Carpov, Nicolas Chapados, and Yoshua Bengio. N-beats: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10437, 2019

arXiv 1905