4.3 Article

On time series classification with dictionary-based classifiers

期刊

INTELLIGENT DATA ANALYSIS
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 1073-1089

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/IDA-184333

关键词

Time series; classification; dictionary

资金

  1. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/M015807/1]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Norwich Research Park Biosciences Doctoral Training Partnership [BB/M011216/1]
  3. BBSRC [1786465] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A family of algorithms for time series classification (TSC) involve running a sliding window across each series, discretising the window to form a word, forming a histogram of word counts over the dictionary, then constructing a classifier on the histograms. A recent evaluation of two of this type of algorithm, Bag of Patterns (BOP) and Bag of Symbolic Fourier Approximation Symbols (BOSS) found a significant difference in accuracy between these seemingly similar algorithms. We investigate this phenomenon by deconstructing the classifiers and measuring the relative importance of the four key components between BOP and BOSS. We find that whilst ensembling is a key component for both algorithms, the effect of the other components is mixed and more complex. We conclude that BOSS represents the state of the art for dictionary-based TSC. Both BOP and BOSS can be classed as bag of words approaches. These are particularly popular in Computer Vision for tasks such as image classification. We adapt three techniques used in Computer Vision for TSC: Scale Invariant Feature Transform; Spatial Pyramids; and Histogram Intersection. We find that using Spatial Pyramids in conjunction with BOSS (SP) produces a significantly more accurate classifier. SP is significantly more accurate than standard benchmarks and the original BOSS algorithm. It is not significantly worse than the best shapelet-based or deep learning approaches, and is only outperformed by an ensemble that includes BOSS as a constituent module.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据