BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Jason Lines

Jason Lines appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Machine LearningDatabases

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2017arXiv

The Heterogeneous Ensembles of Standard Classification Algorithms (HESCA): the Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts

Building classification models is an intrinsically practical exercise that requires many design decisions prior to deployment. We aim to provide some guidance in this decision making process. Specifically, given a classification problem with real valued attributes, we consider which classifier or family of classifiers should one use. Strong contenders are tree based homogeneous ensembles, support vector machines or deep neural networks. All three families of model could claim to be state-of-the-art, and yet it is not clear when one is preferable to the others. Our extensive experiments with over 200 data sets from two distinct archives demonstrate that, rather than choose a single family and expend computing resources on optimising that model, it is significantly better to build simpler versions of classifiers from each family and ensemble. We show that the Heterogeneous Ensembles of Standard Classification Algorithms (HESCA), which ensembles based on error estimates formed on the train data, is significantly better (in terms of error, balanced error, negative log likelihood and area under the ROC curve) than its individual components, picking the component that is best on train data, and a support vector machine tuned over 1089 different parameter configurations. We demonstrate HESCA+, which contains a deep neural network, a support vector machine and two decision tree forests, is significantly better than its components, picking the best component, and HESCA. We analyse the results further and find that HESCA and HESCA+ are of particular value when the train set size is relatively small and the problem has multiple classes. HESCA is a fast approach that is, on average, as good as state-of-the-art classifiers, whereas HESCA+ is significantly better than average and represents a strong benchmark for future research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

The Great Time Series Classification Bake Off: An Experimental Evaluation of Recently Proposed Algorithms. Extended Version

In the last five years there have been a large number of new time series classification algorithms proposed in the literature. These algorithms have been evaluated on subsets of the 47 data sets in the University of California, Riverside time series classification archive. The archive has recently been expanded to 85 data sets, over half of which have been donated by researchers at the University of East Anglia. Aspects of previous evaluations have made comparisons between algorithms difficult. For example, several different programming languages have been used, experiments involved a single train/test split and some used normalised data whilst others did not. The relaunch of the archive provides a timely opportunity to thoroughly evaluate algorithms on a larger number of datasets. We have implemented 18 recently proposed algorithms in a common Java framework and compared them against two standard benchmark classifiers (and each other) by performing 100 resampling experiments on each of the 85 datasets. We use these results to test several hypotheses relating to whether the algorithms are significantly more accurate than the benchmarks and each other. Our results indicate that only 9 of these algorithms are significantly more accurate than both benchmarks and that one classifier, the Collective of Transformation Ensembles, is significantly more accurate than all of the others. All of our experiments and results are reproducible: we release all of our code, results and experimental details and we hope these experiments form the basis for more rigorous testing of new algorithms in the future.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

An Experimental Evaluation of Nearest Neighbour Time Series Classification

Data mining research into time series classification (TSC) has focussed on alternative distance measures for nearest neighbour classifiers. It is standard practice to use 1-NN with Euclidean or dynamic time warping (DTW) distance as a straw man for comparison. As part of a wider investigation into elastic distance measures for TSC~\cite{lines14elastic}, we perform a series of experiments to test whether this standard practice is valid. Specifically, we compare 1-NN classifiers with Euclidean and DTW distance to standard classifiers, examine whether the performance of 1-NN Euclidean approaches that of 1-NN DTW as the number of cases increases, assess whether there is any benefit of setting $k$ for $k$-NN through cross validation whether it is worth setting the warping path for DTW through cross validation and finally is it better to use a window or weighting for DTW. Based on experiments on 77 problems, we conclude that 1-NN with Euclidean distance is fairly easy to beat but 1-NN with DTW is not, if window size is set through cross validation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Finding Motif Sets in Time Series

Time-series motifs are representative subsequences that occur frequently in a time series; a motif set is the set of subsequences deemed to be instances of a given motif. We focus on finding motif sets. Our motivation is to detect motif sets in household electricity-usage profiles, representing repeated patterns of household usage. We propose three algorithms for finding motif sets. Two are greedy algorithms based on pairwise comparison, and the third uses a heuristic measure of set quality to find the motif set directly. We compare these algorithms on simulated datasets and on electricity-usage data. We show that Scan MK, the simplest way of using the best-matching pair to find motif sets, is less accurate on our synthetic data than Set Finder and Cluster MK, although the latter is very sensitive to parameter settings. We qualitatively analyse the outputs for the electricity-usage data and demonstrate that both Scan MK and Set Finder can discover useful motif sets in such data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access