ArticleScientific reports2022
A time-reversed model selection approach to time series forecasting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalised Blood Glucose Time Series Forecasting in Type 1 Diabetes: Deep Collaborative Adversarial Learning.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a CT-measured body composition radiomics model for prognostic assessment in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we introduce a novel model selection approach to time series forecasting. For linear stationary processes, such as AR processes, the direction of time is independent of the model parameters. By combining theoretical principles of time-reversibility in time series with conventional modeling approaches such as information criteria, we construct a criterion that employs the backwards prediction (backcast) as a proxy for the forecast. Hereby, we aim to adopt a theoretically grounded, data-driven approach to model selection. The novel criterion is named the backwards validated information criterion (BVIC). The BVIC identifies suitable models by trading off a measure of goodness-of-fit and a models ability to predict backwards. We test the performance of the BVIC by conducting experiments on synthetic and real data. In each experiment, the BVIC is examined in contrast to conventionally employed criteria. Our experimental results suggest that the BVIC has comparable performance as conventional information criteria. Specifically, in most of the experiments performed, we did not find statistically significant differences between the forecast error of the BVIC under certain parameterizations and that of the different information criteria. Nonetheless, it is worth emphasizing that the BVIC guarantees are established by design where the model order penalization term depends on strong mathematical properties of time-reversible time series forecasting properties and a finite data assessment. In particular, the penalization term is replaced by a weighted trade-off between functional dimensions pertaining to forecasting.That said, we observed that the BVIC recovered more accurately the real order of the underlying process than the other criteria, which rely on a static penalization of the model order. Lastly, leveraging the latter property we perform the assessment of the order model (or, memory) of time series pertaining to epileptic seizures recorded using electrocorticographic data. Our results provide converging evidence that the order of the model increases during the epileptic events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.