Generalizing DTW to the multi-dimensional case requires an adaptive approach

By Mohammad Shokoohi-Yekta, Bing Hu, Hongxia Jin, Jun Wang, Eamonn J. Keogh. Data mining and knowledge discovery, 2016

322 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In recent years Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) has emerged as the distance measure of choice for virtually all time series data mining applications. For example, virtually all applications that process data from wearable devices use DTW as a core sub-routine. This is the result of significant progress in improving DTW’s efficiency, together with multiple empirical studies showing that DTW-based classifiers at least equal (and generally surpass) the accuracy of all their rivals across dozens of datasets. Thus far, most of the research has considered only the one-dimensional case, with practitioners generalizing to the multi-dimensional case in one of two ways, dependent or independent warping. In general, it appears the community believes either that the two ways are equivalent, or that the choice is irrelevant. In this work, we show that this is not the case. The two most commonly used multi-dimensional DTW methods can produce different classifications, and neither one dominates over the other. This seems to suggest that one should learn the best method for a particular application. However, we will show that this is not necessary; a simple, principled rule can be used on a case-by-case basis to predict which of the two methods we should trust at the time of classification. Our method allows us to ensure that classification results are at least as accurate as the better of the two rival methods, and, in many cases, our method is significantly more accurate. We demonstrate our ideas with the most extensive set of multi-dimensional time series classification experiments ever attempted.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Signal Processing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/594598cc54267cc34d6eb6445430fd92672138a9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

  1. Anthony J. Bagnall
  2. Jason Lines
  3. Aaron Bostrom
  4. James Large
  5. Hoang Anh Dau
  6. Michael D. Flynn
  7. Eamonn J. Keogh
  8. Geoffrey I. Webb

In Signal Processing

  1. Anthony J. Bagnall
  2. Jason Lines
  3. Aaron Bostrom
  4. James Large
  5. Eamonn J. Keogh
  6. Michael D. Flynn
  7. Hoang Anh Dau
  8. Rohit J. Kate

Citations in the corpus