Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2201.04449

Intra-domain and cross-domain transfer learning for time series data -- How transferable are the features?

Erik Otović·Marko Njirjak·Dario Jozinović·Goran Mauša·Alberto Michelini·Ivan Štajduhar
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In practice, it is very demanding and sometimes impossible to collect datasets of tagged data large enough to successfully train a machine learning model, and one possible solution to this problem is transfer learning. This study aims to assess how transferable are the features between different domains of time series data and under which conditions. The effects of transfer learning are observed in terms of predictive performance of the models and their convergence rate during training. In our experiment, we use reduced data sets of 1,500 and 9,000 data instances to mimic real world conditions. Using the same scaled-down datasets, we trained two sets of machine learning models: those that were trained with transfer learning and those that were trained from scratch. Four machine learning models were used for the experiment. Transfer of knowledge was performed within the same domain of application (seismology), as well as between mutually different domains of application (seismology, speech, medicine, finance). We observe the predictive performance of the models and the convergence rate during the training. In order to confirm the validity of the obtained results, we repeated the experiments seven times and applied statistical tests to confirm the significance of the results. The general conclusion of our study is that transfer learning is very likely to either increase or not negatively affect the predictive performance of the model or its convergence rate. The collected data is analysed in more details to determine which source and target domains are compatible for transfer of knowledge. We also analyse the effect of target dataset size and the selection of model and its hyperparameters on the effects of transfer learning.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Erik Otović, Marko Njirjak, Dario Jozinović, Goran Mauša, Alberto Michelini, Ivan Štajduhar. 2022-01-12. Intra-domain and cross-domain transfer learning for time series data -- How transferable are the features?. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107976

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗