PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Con4m: Unleashing the Power of Consistency and Context in Classification for Blurred-Segmented Time Series

Junru Chen, Tianyu Cao, Jing Xu, Jiahe Li, Zhilong Chen, Tao Xiao, Yang Yang

representation learningTime series classificationLabel consistency learningContext-aware time series modelBlurred-segmented time series
23.70100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.27)
23.60100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)
23.20100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Blurred-Segmented Time Series (BST) has emerged as a prevalent form of time series data in various practical applications, presenting unique challenges for the Time Series Classification (TSC) task. The BST data is segmented into continuous states with inherently blurred transitions. These transitions lead to inconsistency in annotations among different individuals due to experiential differences, thereby hampering model training and validation. However, existing TSC methods often fail to recognize label inconsistency and contextual dependencies between consecutive classified samples. In this work, we first theoretically clarify the connotation of valuable contextual information. Based on these insights, we incorporate prior knowledge of BST data at both the data and class levels into our model design to capture effective contextual information. Furthermore, we propose a label consistency training framework to harmonize inconsistent labels. Extensive experiments on two public and one private BST data fully validate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, Con4m, in handling the TSC task on BST data.

Author context

Most prolific author: 4 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 40 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 45% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 40)