跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:评论明确讨论时间序列变化点标注、在线检测和多变化点扩展,直接对应结构变化与时间序列方法。

反馈分类问题

Ivor Cribben and Anastasiou Andreas’s contribution to the Discussion of ‘the Discussion Meeting on Probabilistic and statistical aspects of machine learning’

Cribben 与 Anastasiou 对机器学习概率统计讨论会论文的评论

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Andreas Anastasiou
Ivor Cribben

Cribben 与 Anastasiou 对机器学习概率统计讨论会论文的评论

研究问题
依靠神经网络训练的变化点检测,如何面对标注主观性、类别不平衡和计算成本,并支持在线及高维应用?
方法与思路
评论作者围绕标注、数据不平衡与计算复杂度提出质询,并讨论训练样本规模、在线扩展及采用 MOSUM 思路的理由。
材料陈述的贡献
所给评论指出变化点方法评价和部署需要澄清的问题,要求论证泛化与计算可行性;并未报告新的检测算法或定理。
阅读关注点
应对照被讨论论文及作者回复,核对标注标准、不平衡实验、训练成本,以及在线和多变化点扩展是否获得支持。
阅读边界
依据稿件版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;这是讨论评论,质询不等于已证实的缺陷,也不能将主论文结果归给评论者。

原文摘要

We extend our congratulations to the authors for their innovative contribution. Here, we address three key points: change-point labelling, handling imbalanced datasets, and computational complexity. Change-point labelling in datasets has many flaws and challenges. The primary flaw is the subjectivity inherent in the task as it often relies on human judgement. This subjectivity introduces biases and inconsistencies. One challenge is the lack of a universally accepted standard for change-point labelling unlike other machine learning classification problems. Hence, it is difficult to compare results across studies, hindering reproducibility and reliability. A further issue is that change-point labelling can be a time-consuming and labour-intensive task, especially for large and complex time series datasets. This process often requires domain expertise and can be impractical for real-time or high-frequency data analysis. Imbalanced class distributions in datasets are another issue. Change-points are often rarer than normal instances, but imbalanced datasets can lead to skewed evaluation results, with methods prioritizing the majority class and failing to effectively detect true change-points or managing an excessive rate of false positives. We wonder whether the authors explored examples of imbalanced data, specifically those involving significant changes in approximately half of the dataset (N/2). It is important to underscore that addressing the labelling and imbalance challenges is pivotal for change-point methods that rely on training neural networks. The sample size used for training neural networks plays a crucial role in determining the model’s performance and generalizability. An excessively large sample size might lead to increased computational costs and training time without significant gains in performance after a certain point. In the first step of the proposed algorithm, there is the necessity of training a neural network using a considerable sample size. A discussion on this topic could convince the reader that the proposed method can be extended to an online framework (as discussed in Section 7). Apart from accuracy, and especially in high-frequency data, online change-point detection methods have to be very computationally efficient in order for users to act promptly. The computational complexity in the simple univariate setting is also crucial to understand extensions to practically meaningful adaptations of the algorithm to multivariate, possibly high-dimensional frameworks. Furthermore, an expansion of the method to the multiple change-point framework is discussed through an idea similar to that of moving sum (MOSUM; Eichinger & Kirch, 2018). It would be beneficial to the reader for the authors to justify this choice; is it due to MOSUM’s low computational complexity?

笔记与分组
相关领域论文