时间序列归一化方法的比较

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2023-08-22 DOI:10.1016/j.bdr.2023.100407
Felipe Tomazelli Lima, Vinicius M.A. Souza
{"title":"时间序列归一化方法的比较","authors":"Felipe Tomazelli Lima,&nbsp;Vinicius M.A. Souza","doi":"10.1016/j.bdr.2023.100407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Normalization is a mandatory preprocessing step<span><span><span> in time series problems to guarantee similarity comparisons invariant to unexpected distortions in amplitude and offset. Such distortions are usual for most time series data<span>. A typical example is gait recognition by motion collected on subjects with varying body height and width. To rescale the data for the same range of values, the vast majority of researchers consider z-normalization as the default method for any domain application, data, or task. This choice is made without a searching process as occurs to set the parameters of an algorithm or without any experimental evidence in the literature considering a variety of scenarios to support this decision. To address this gap, we evaluate the impact of different normalization methods on time series data. Our analysis is based on an extensive experimental comparison on classification problems involving 10 normalization methods, 3 state-of-the-art classifiers, and 38 benchmark datasets. We consider the </span></span>classification task<span> due to the simplicity of the experimental settings and well-defined metrics. However, our findings can be extrapolated for other time series mining tasks, such as forecasting or clustering. Based on our results, we suggest to evaluate the maximum absolute scale as an alternative to z-normalization. Besides being time efficient, this alternative shows promising results for similarity-based methods using Euclidean distance. For </span></span>deep learning, mean normalization could be considered.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Large Comparison of Normalization Methods on Time Series\",\"authors\":\"Felipe Tomazelli Lima,&nbsp;Vinicius M.A. Souza\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bdr.2023.100407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Normalization is a mandatory preprocessing step<span><span><span> in time series problems to guarantee similarity comparisons invariant to unexpected distortions in amplitude and offset. Such distortions are usual for most time series data<span>. A typical example is gait recognition by motion collected on subjects with varying body height and width. To rescale the data for the same range of values, the vast majority of researchers consider z-normalization as the default method for any domain application, data, or task. This choice is made without a searching process as occurs to set the parameters of an algorithm or without any experimental evidence in the literature considering a variety of scenarios to support this decision. To address this gap, we evaluate the impact of different normalization methods on time series data. Our analysis is based on an extensive experimental comparison on classification problems involving 10 normalization methods, 3 state-of-the-art classifiers, and 38 benchmark datasets. We consider the </span></span>classification task<span> due to the simplicity of the experimental settings and well-defined metrics. However, our findings can be extrapolated for other time series mining tasks, such as forecasting or clustering. Based on our results, we suggest to evaluate the maximum absolute scale as an alternative to z-normalization. Besides being time efficient, this alternative shows promising results for similarity-based methods using Euclidean distance. For </span></span>deep learning, mean normalization could be considered.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214579623000400\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214579623000400","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

归一化是时间序列问题中必不可少的预处理步骤,以保证相似性比较不受幅度和偏移的意外畸变的影响。这种扭曲对大多数时间序列数据来说是常见的。一个典型的例子是通过收集不同身高和宽度的受试者的运动来识别步态。为了在相同的值范围内重新调整数据,绝大多数研究人员认为z归一化是任何领域应用程序、数据或任务的默认方法。这种选择是在没有搜索过程的情况下做出的,就像设置算法的参数一样,或者在文献中没有考虑到各种场景来支持这一决定的任何实验证据。为了解决这一差距,我们评估了不同归一化方法对时间序列数据的影响。我们的分析基于对分类问题的广泛实验比较,涉及10种归一化方法、3种最先进的分类器和38个基准数据集。我们考虑的分类任务,由于简单的实验设置和良好定义的指标。然而,我们的发现可以外推到其他时间序列挖掘任务,如预测或聚类。根据我们的结果,我们建议评估最大绝对尺度作为z归一化的替代方案。除了时间效率外,这种替代方法在使用欧几里得距离的基于相似性的方法中显示出有希望的结果。对于深度学习,可以考虑均值归一化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Large Comparison of Normalization Methods on Time Series

Normalization is a mandatory preprocessing step in time series problems to guarantee similarity comparisons invariant to unexpected distortions in amplitude and offset. Such distortions are usual for most time series data. A typical example is gait recognition by motion collected on subjects with varying body height and width. To rescale the data for the same range of values, the vast majority of researchers consider z-normalization as the default method for any domain application, data, or task. This choice is made without a searching process as occurs to set the parameters of an algorithm or without any experimental evidence in the literature considering a variety of scenarios to support this decision. To address this gap, we evaluate the impact of different normalization methods on time series data. Our analysis is based on an extensive experimental comparison on classification problems involving 10 normalization methods, 3 state-of-the-art classifiers, and 38 benchmark datasets. We consider the classification task due to the simplicity of the experimental settings and well-defined metrics. However, our findings can be extrapolated for other time series mining tasks, such as forecasting or clustering. Based on our results, we suggest to evaluate the maximum absolute scale as an alternative to z-normalization. Besides being time efficient, this alternative shows promising results for similarity-based methods using Euclidean distance. For deep learning, mean normalization could be considered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
期刊最新文献
Vitamin B12: prevention of human beings from lethal diseases and its food application. Current status and obstacles of narrowing yield gaps of four major crops. Cold shock treatment alleviates pitting in sweet cherry fruit by enhancing antioxidant enzymes activity and regulating membrane lipid metabolism. Removal of proteins and lipids affects structure, in vitro digestion and physicochemical properties of rice flour modified by heat-moisture treatment. Investigating the impact of climate variables on the organic honey yield in Turkey using XGBoost machine learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1