Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 37 references

TEASER: Early and Accurate Time Series Classification

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TEASER claims that early time series classification can be both earlier and more accurate when a second classifier is allowed to decide when the first classifier's prediction is trustworthy.

desk verdict TEASER is a genuine two-tier per-instance early classification method with strong empirical results; the main question is whether the master's training protocol leaks training-time confidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03405 v2 pith:NX2KDXHI submitted 2019-08-09 cs.LG stat.ML

P. Schäfer , U. Leser This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords earlytimeseriesclassificationtwo-tierone-classSVMWEASELearlinessadaptivedecision
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 the fixed decision time assumed by previous early time series classification methods is unnecessary and harmful. It presents TEASER, which lets a second classifier watch the class probabilities produced by a first classifier at regular snapshots and decide per time series whether the current prediction can be trusted. On 45 benchmark datasets the method is reported to decide after 23% of a series on average, versus 49% and 50% for the next-earliest competitors, while also having the highest average accuracy (75%). On three real-world datasets without aligned start times, the reported advantage is even larger. If these results hold, early classification can be adaptive rather than locked to a fixed observation window.

What carries the argument

The central object is the snapshot-indexed pair of slave and master classifiers. The slave is a full time series classifier (WEASEL in the final configuration) producing the predicted class, the vector of class probabilities, and the margin between the top two probabilities. The master is a one-class SVM, a support vector machine that encloses positive examples in a minimal hypersphere rather than separating two classes; it is trained on only the slave's correctly classified training snapshots. At prediction time a master rejection means TEASER waits for the next snapshot, and $v$ consecutive acceptances of the same class trigger the final output. The machinery converts "when should we stop observing?" into a classification problem in the slave's probability space.

What would settle it

Take a trained TEASER model and shift every test series so its characteristic event appears at an offset never seen in training, while keeping the event shape identical. If the master accepts confidently wrong predictions or rejects correct ones at the new offsets, the claim that the trust region transfers beyond the training start-time distribution is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TEASER's central claim is that the tension between earliness and accuracy in time series classification is not fixed; it is an artifact of forcing all series to wait the same amount. The method trains, for each snapshot length, a slave classifier that outputs a class probability vector and a master one-class SVM that learns the region of probability space where the slave is correct. At test time, the master accepts a prediction only when the slave's output falls inside that region, and the final label is emitted only after the same class is accepted for consecutive snapshots. Because acceptance depends on the incoming series' own probability trajectory rather than on a precomputed offset, decision time varies per series. This is the discovery: reliability is a learned boundary in probability space, not a fixed fraction of the series.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the master's hypersphere around the slave's correctly classified training snapshots is a reliable picture of where the slave can be trusted on unseen test series; if the slave's errors on test data fall in a different region of probability space, the master will accept false predictions or reject correct ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single TEASER model assigns different decision times to different time series: a series whose discriminative event appears early is classified early, while an ambiguous series is observed longer before any label is emitted.
  • The interval length $w$ is an explicit control for the trade-off: smaller $w$ gives earlier decisions with a small accuracy cost, and the paper reports that TEASER reaches about 95% of full-series accuracy after 40% of the series on average.
  • The accuracy advantage holds even on pre-aligned benchmark data, the setting designed to favour fixed-time methods, and on three unaligned real-world datasets TEASER is reported to be both more accurate and earlier.
  • When TEASER is forced to match the earliest competitor's decision time, it still reports higher accuracy, so the paper's optimum is not restricted to a slow operating point.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the authors do not test is training the master on correct and incorrect slave outputs together, or on a held-out split; comparing that against the current correct-only training would directly test how much robustness the trust region loses.
  • The distance from a test prediction to the master's hypersphere boundary could serve as a per-series confidence score or as a signal that the incoming time series is unlike the training distribution.
  • In streaming settings where the characteristic event never arrives, the master would keep rejecting forever; adding a timeout or abstention rule would be a natural extension of the same mechanism.
  • Because TEASER ties decision time to the occurrence of discriminative patterns, it should be sensitive to class-specific event timing; a dataset where the same class appears with very different pattern offsets would show whether the master's region is broad enough.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. TEASER is a two-tier early time series classification method: a first-tier slave classifier (WEASEL, BOSS, or 1-NN DTW) produces class probabilities at equally spaced snapshots, and a second-tier one-class SVM master decides, from the slave's predicted label, probability vector, and margin, whether the prediction is safe; a consecutive-vote threshold v suppresses transient predictions. The paper claims that on 45 UCR benchmark datasets TEASER achieves a mean earliness of 23% versus 49-50% for the next-best methods while having the highest mean accuracy (75%), and it reports additional experiments on ACS-F1, PLAID, and CMU walking-motion data. The training protocol z-normalizes each truncated snapshot before classification to avoid future-information leakage, and the master is trained on the correctly classified training snapshots of the slave.

Significance. If the reported numbers are reliable, the contribution is significant and practical: it replaces fixed decision times with per-series stopping, which matters for applications with unknown start times, and it does so without sacrificing accuracy. The benchmark coverage (45 UCR datasets plus three real-world datasets), the ablation over slave and master choices, and the careful handling of z-normalization are strengths. The one-class SVM formulation is a sensible response to the absence of negative samples for the master. The main risk is that the master's training distribution is not the distribution it sees at test time, so the headline accuracy-earliness trade-off needs confirmation under a held-out protocol.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, steps 3-4; Algorithm 1 lines 5-7] The master one-class SVM is trained only on the slave's in-sample predictions that were correct on the full training set. Because the final slave is fitted on those same snapshots, the feature vectors (c(si), P(si), Delta d(si)) that define the master's acceptance hypersphere are training-time confidence vectors, not held-out ones; classifiers are typically overconfident on their own training data. Since the master is the sole mechanism for deciding when to stop, this distribution mismatch can directly bias the reported mean earliness of 23% at 75% accuracy: test-time false predictions outside the learned region can be accepted, and correct low-confidence predictions can be rejected, with no corrective signal during training. Please re-train the master with a nested or out-of-fold protocol (e.g., generate the master features on held-out folds, and tune nu, gamma, and v on a validation split), and report both in-sample and out-of-fold calibrated results.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Section 4.2] The choice of WEASEL+ocSVM as the final TEASER configuration is made after comparing variants on the same 45 UCR test sets whose results are then reported as the headline comparison (Figure 7 versus Figure 8 and Table 2). This is model selection on the evaluation benchmark, and the average ranks and Wilcoxon tests do not account for that selection. The configuration should be chosen by internal cross-validation on the training splits alone, or the 45-dataset results should be framed as a model-selection study with a separate confirmatory benchmark.
  3. [Section 4.2] The UCR competitor results are taken from publications rather than generated by rerunning the competitor implementations under the same protocol, although the text states that w = nmax/20 was used; if the published numbers were produced with different interval lengths or evaluation conventions, the claimed 2-3x earliness advantage may be an artifact of protocol differences. Please either rerun the available competitor codes under the same settings, as is done for the three real datasets, or report for each dataset the exact published configuration and the value of w employed.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'two two-tier classification problem' should read 'two-tier classification problem'.
  2. [Section 2] The harmonic-mean equation is garbled; it should be HM = 2 * (1 - earliness) * accuracy / ((1 - earliness) + accuracy).
  3. [Algorithm 1, line 8] The grid-search for v is inside the loop over time stamps and overwrites v at every t, although the text and the return statement treat v as a single global threshold; the loop should be moved outside or clarified.
  4. [Section 4.2] There is a typo 'EDCS' where 'EDSC' is meant.
  5. [Section 4] The reproducibility statement says 'we provide the TEASER source code and the raw measurement sheets [?]' but the placeholder is unresolved; a URL or DOI should be supplied.
  6. [Section 3.3] The objective function for the gamma grid-search of the one-class SVM is not stated; the text says 'optimal gamma value' but does not specify what is optimized on the training set.
  7. [Section 3.2] The master input includes the class label c(si), but the paper does not specify how this categorical feature is encoded for the SVM; please clarify whether it is an integer, one-hot, or separate per-class master.
  8. [Section 4.2] The statement that 'a roughly 360% faster infrastructure would be needed' is unclear; requiring 3.6 master predictions on average means roughly 3.6 times the prediction throughput, not 360% faster in the usual sense.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: TEASER's earliness/accuracy claims are measured on test splits; the self-cited WEASEL slave is independent and ablated.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (23% mean earliness, 75% mean accuracy, Pareto wins) are reported from test splits of the 45 UCR datasets, not derived from the training procedure. The master one-class SVM is trained on the slave's correctly classified training snapshots, and the consecutive-vote threshold v is chosen by grid-search maximizing HM on the training data; these are standard model-selection steps, and the reported test numbers are not algebraically forced by them. The only self-citation is the use of WEASEL as the slave classifier, but WEASEL is an independently published classifier and the paper also compares BOSS and DTW slaves, so the TEASER framework does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The in-sample training of the master is a potential generalization weakness, but it is not circularity: no equation in the paper equals its own input by construction, and no prediction is a renamed fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

TEASER introduces no new physical entities; the slave and master are algorithmic roles over standard classifiers. Hyperparameters w, v, word length, gamma, and nu are selected by grid search or fixed on training data. Core domain assumptions are equal sampling frequency, the sufficiency of the slave's probability output for reliability estimation, and the generalization of the one-class SVM from correctly classified training snapshots to test snapshots.

free parameters (5)
  • Interval length w = nmax/20 (default), varied in Section 4.3
    User-defined snapshot interval; controls how often slave and master are called. Set to one twentieth of the longest training time series in all main experiments, matching prior eTSC practice.
  • Consecutive prediction threshold v = Grid-searched over {1,...,5} on train data
    Minimum number of identical accepted predictions required before output; tuned per dataset by maximizing harmonic mean on the training split (Section 3.3, step 5).
  • WEASEL word length = Grid-searched over {4,...,6} via 10-fold CV on train
    Slave classifier hyperparameter; selected per dataset via internal cross-validation (Section 4.1).
  • ocSVM gamma = Grid-searched within {1,...,100} on train
    RBF kernel bandwidth for the one-class SVM master; selected on training data (Section 4.1).
  • ocSVM nu = 0.05 (fixed)
    Upper bound on training samples the one-class SVM may dismiss; fixed by hand rather than tuned on each dataset (Section 4.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All time series in a dataset share the same sampling frequency.
    Stated in Section 2 after Definition 2.1; the framework measures earliness in data points rather than time and would need rescaling otherwise.
  • domain assumption The slave's class probabilities and the margin between the two highest probabilities are sufficient features for judging prediction reliability.
    The master's input is the 3-tuple (c, P, delta d) from Section 3.1 and Section 3.3 step (4). If reliability depended on raw series values not captured in probabilities, the master would be blind to that information.
  • domain assumption A one-class SVM trained on correctly classified training snapshots generalizes to unseen test snapshots.
    Training procedure in Section 3.3 step (4) builds the acceptance region only from positive training examples; the central accuracy-earliness trade-off depends on this region holding at test time.
  • domain assumption Published performance numbers of ECTS, RelClass, EDSC, and ECDIRE on the UCR benchmark are comparable to TEASER's measurements on the same 45 datasets.
    Section 4.2 states 'we use published numbers on accuracy and earliness of these methods'; differences in preprocessing, software, or evaluation details could bias the comparison.
  • domain assumption The 45 UCR datasets plus the three use-case datasets are representative of eTSC scenarios where start times are arbitrary or unknown.
    The paper motivates TEASER with unaligned starts but most UCR data is preprocessed and aligned (Section 4.2); the real-life datasets are used to test that motivation. If those datasets were unrepresentative, the main practical claim would be weakened.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TEASER: Early and Accurate Time Series Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NX2KDXHI

@misc{pith2026190803405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TEASER: Early and Accurate Time Series Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NX2KDXHI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03405}
}
read the original abstract

Early time series classification (eTSC) is the problem of classifying a time series after as few measurements as possible with the highest possible accuracy. The most critical issue of any eTSC method is to decide when enough data of a time series has been seen to take a decision: Waiting for more data points usually makes the classification problem easier but delays the time in which a classification is made; in contrast, earlier classification has to cope with less input data, often leading to inferior accuracy. The state-of-the-art eTSC methods compute a fixed optimal decision time assuming that every times series has the same defined start time (like turning on a machine). However, in many real-life applications measurements start at arbitrary times (like measuring heartbeats of a patient), implying that the best time for taking a decision varies heavily between time series. We present TEASER, a novel algorithm that models eTSC as a two two-tier classification problem: In the first tier, a classifier periodically assesses the incoming time series to compute class probabilities. However, these class probabilities are only used as output label if a second-tier classifier decides that the predicted label is reliable enough, which can happen after a different number of measurements. In an evaluation using 45 benchmark datasets, TEASER is two to three times earlier at predictions than its competitors while reaching the same or an even higher classification accuracy. We further show TEASER's superior performance using real-life use cases, namely energy monitoring, and gait detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Traces of microwaves taken from [11]. The opera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. eTSC on a trace of a digital receiver. The figure shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TEASER is given a snapshot of an energy consumption time series. After seeing the first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TEASER trains pairs of slave and master classifiers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The accuracy of the slave classifier reaches 100% af [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average Harmonic Mean (HM) over earliness and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average ranks over earliness (left) and accuracy (right) for 45 TS datasets (lower rank is better). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Harmonic mean (HM) for TEASER vs. the four eTSC classifiers (ECTS, EDSC, RelClass and ECDIRE). Red dots indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average earliness (left; lower is better) and accuracy (right; higher is better) for TEASER on the 45 TS datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Earliness of predictions on the walking motion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. C. Aggarwal and K. Subbian. Event detection in social streams. InProceedings of the 2012 SIAM international conference on data mining, pages 624–635. SIAM, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Chang and C.-J

    C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin. Libsvm: a library for support vector machines. ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology (TIST), 2(3):27, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    http://mocap.cs.cmu.edu/

    CMU Graphics Lab Motion Capture Database. http://mocap.cs.cmu.edu/

    work page

  4. [4]

    Cuturi and A

    M. Cuturi and A. Doucet. Autoregressive kernels for time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:1101.0673, 2011

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    J. Demˇsar. Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7:1–30, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Fan, K.-W

    R.-E. Fan, K.-W. Chang, C.-J. Hsieh, X.-R. Wang, and C.-J. Lin. Liblinear: A library for large linear classification. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:1871–1874, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    H. I. Fawaz, G. Forestier, J. Weber, L. Idoumghar, and P.-A. Muller. Deep learning for time series classification: a review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.04356, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    M. M. Gaber, A. Zaslavsky, and S. Krishnaswamy. Mining data streams: a review. ACM Sigmod Record, 34(2):18–26, 2005

    work page 2005

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    J. Gao, S. Giri, E. C. Kara, and M. Berg ´es. Plaid: a public dataset of high- resoultion electrical appliance measurements for load identification research: demo abstract. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Embedded Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings, pages 198–199...

    2014

  2. [10]

    M. F. Ghalwash, V . Radosavljevic, and Z. Obradovic. Utilizing temporal patterns for estimating uncertainty in interpretable early decision making. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 402–411. ACM, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Gisler, A

    C. Gisler, A. Ridi, D. Zujferey, O. A. Khaled, and J. Hennebert. Appliance consumption signature database and recognition test protocols. In International Workshop on Systems, Signal Processing and their Applications (WoSSPA), pages 336–341. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    Grabocka, N

    J. Grabocka, N. Schilling, M. Wistuba, and L. Schmidt-Thieme. Learning time- series shapelets. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGKDD International Confer- ence on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 392–401. ACM, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    M. P. Griffin and J. R. Moorman. Toward the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis and sepsis-like illness using novel heart rate analysis. Pediatrics, 107(1):97–104, 2001

    2001

  6. [14]

    B. F. Hobbs, S. Jitprapaikulsarn, S. Konda, V . Chankong, K. A. Loparo, and D. J. Maratukulam. Analysis of the value for unit commitment of improved load forecasts. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 14(4):1342–1348, 1999

    1999

  7. [15]

    Jerzak and H

    Z. Jerzak and H. Ziekow. The DEBS 2014 Grand Challenge. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-based Systems, pages 266–269. ACM, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    S. S. Khan and M. G. Madden. A survey of recent trends in one class classification. In Irish conference on artificial intelligence and cognitive science, pages 188–197. Springer, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    J. Lin, R. Khade, and Y . Li. Rotation-invariant similarity in time series using bag- of-patterns representation. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 39(2):287– 315, 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    U. Mori, A. Mendiburu, S. Dasgupta, and J. A. Lozano. Early classification of time series by simultaneously optimizing the accuracy and earliness. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    U. Mori, A. Mendiburu, E. Keogh, and J. A. Lozano. Reliable early classification of time series based on discriminating the classes over time. Data mining and knowledge discovery, 31(1):233–263, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Mutschler, H

    C. Mutschler, H. Ziekow, and Z. Jerzak. The DEBS 2013 grand challenge. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Conference on Distributed Event- based Systems, pages 289–294. ACM, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Nguyen, Y .-K

    H.-L. Nguyen, Y .-K. Woon, and W.-K. Ng. A survey on data stream clustering and classification. Knowledge and Information Systems , 45(3):535–569, Dec 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Parrish, H

    N. Parrish, H. S. Anderson, M. R. Gupta, and D. Y . Hsiao. Classifying with confidence from incomplete information. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14(1):3561–3589, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Perol, M

    T. Perol, M. Gharbi, and M. Denolle. Convolutional neural network for earthquake detection and location. Science Advances, 4(2):e1700578, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Protopapas, J

    P. Protopapas, J. Giammarco, L. Faccioli, M. Struble, R. Dave, and C. Alcock. Finding outlier light curves in catalogues of periodic variable stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369(2):677–696, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Rakthanmanon, B

    T. Rakthanmanon, B. Campana, A. Mueen, G. Batista, B. Westover, Q. Zhu, J. Za- karia, and E. Keogh. Searching and mining trillions of time series subsequences under dynamic time warping. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM SIGKDD Inter- national Conference on Knowledge Discovery an...

    2012

  18. [26]

    Santos and R

    T. Santos and R. Kern. A literature survey of early time series classification and deep learning. In Sami@ iknow, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Sch¨afer

    P. Sch¨afer. Towards Time Series Classification without Human Preprocessing. In Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition, pages 228–242. Springer, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Sch¨afer

    P. Sch¨afer. The BOSS is concerned with time series classification in the presence of noise. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 29(6):1505–1530, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Sch¨afer and M

    P. Sch¨afer and M. H¨ogqvist. SFA: a symbolic fourier approximation and index for similarity search in high dimensional datasets. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Extending Database Technology, pages 516–527. ACM, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    Sch¨afer and U

    P. Sch¨afer and U. Leser. Fast and Accurate Time Series Classification with WEASEL. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 637–646, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Sch¨olkopf, J

    B. Sch¨olkopf, J. C. Platt, J. Shawe-Taylor, A. J. Smola, and R. C. Williamson. Estimating the support of a high-dimensional distribution. Neural computation, 13(7):1443–1471, 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50814

    The Value of Wind Power Forecasting. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50814. pdf, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Z. Wang, W. Yan, and T. Oates. Time series classification from scratch with deep neural networks: A strong baseline. In Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2017 10 International Joint Conference on, pages 1578–1585. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Z. Xing, J. Pei, and S. Y . Philip. Early classification on time series.Knowledge and information systems, 31(1):105–127, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Z. Xing, J. Pei, P. S. Yu, and K. Wang. Extracting interpretable features for early classification on time series. In Proceedings of the 2011 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pages 247–258. SIAM, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    The UCR Time Series Classification Archive

    Y Chen, E Keogh, B Hu, N Begum, A Bagnall, A Mueen and G Batista . The UCR Time Series Classification Archive. http://www.cs.ucr.edu/∼eamonn/time series data, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Ye and E

    L. Ye and E. J. Keogh. Time series shapelets: a new primitive for data mining. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 2009. 11

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.