Cited by 1,377Time Series Analysis and ForecastingMusic and Audio ProcessingImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques

The great time series classification bake off: a review and experimental evaluation of recent algorithmic advances

Open access
Bagnall, Anthony, Lines, Jason, Bostrom, Aaron, Large, James, Keogh, Eamonn·2017·Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery

Abstract

In the last 5 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 nine 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 robust testing of new algorithms in the future.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10618-016-0483-9

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • HIVE-COTE is currently considered the state-of-the-art algorithm for TSC when evaluated over the 85 datasets from the UCR/UEA archive.

    “HIVE-COTE is currently considered the state-of-the-art algorithm for time series classification (Bagnall et al., 2017) when evaluated over the 85 datasets from the UCR/UEA archive.”

    From Deep learning for time series classification: a review (2019) · cites this paper as Bagnall et al., 2017

  • HIVE-COTE is hugely computationally intensive and impractical to run on a real big data mining problem.

    “To achieve its high accuracy, HIVE-COTE becomes hugely computationally intensive and impractical to run on a real big data mining problem (Bagnall et al., 2017).”

    From Deep learning for time series classification: a review (2019) · cites this paper as Bagnall et al., 2017

  • Only a few TSC methods have considered Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) to perform TSC.

    “Among these methods, only a few have considered Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) to perform this task.”

    From Deep learning for time series classification: a review (2019) · cites this paper as Bagnall et al., 2017

  • The paper used a common framework in Python, Keras and Tensorflow to train deep learning models on a cluster of more than 60 GPUs for fair comparison.

    “Similarly to Bagnall et al. (2017), in order to have a fair comparison between the tested approaches, we developed a common framework in Python, Keras (Chollet, 2015) and Tensorflow (Abadi et al., 2015) to train the deep learning models on a cluster of more than 60 GPUs.”

    From Deep learning for time series classification: a review (2019) · cites this paper as Bagnall et al., 2017

  • The time series in the UCR/UEA archive are already z-normalized.

    “Note that the time series in this archive are already z-normalized (Bagnall et al., 2017).”

    From Deep learning for time series classification: a review (2019) · cites this paper as Bagnall et al., 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bagnall, A., Lines, J., Bostrom, A., Large, J., & Keogh, E.
Affiliations
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Bagnall, Anthony
Venue
Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
Published
2016-11-23
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
606-660
ISSN
  • 1384-5810 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-756X
OpenAlex
W2555077524
Cited by
1,377
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 90 · 2025: 133 · 2024: 166 · 2023: 185 · 2022: 187 · 2021: 195 · 2020: 199 · 2019: 130 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 1
FWCI
81.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M015087/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Time Series Analysis and Forecasting
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Keywords
time series classification, benchmark dataset, algorithm comparison, classification accuracy, reproducibility, Java implementation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review