Baseline Results for Selected Nonlinear System Identification Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10779v2
• Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 09:28:35 GMT
• Title: Baseline Results for Selected Nonlinear System Identification Benchmarks
• Authors: Max D. Champneys, Gerben I. Beintema, Roland Tóth, Maarten Schoukens, Timothy J. Rogers,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a set of ten baseline techniques and their relative performances on five popular benchmarks. The aim of this contribution is to stimulate thought and discussion regarding objective comparison of identification methodologies.
• Score: 2.144088660722956
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Nonlinear system identification remains an important open challenge across research and academia. Large numbers of novel approaches are seen published each year, each presenting improvements or extensions to existing methods. It is natural, therefore, to consider how one might choose between these competing models. Benchmark datasets provide one clear way to approach this question. However, to make meaningful inference based on benchmark performance it is important to understand how well a new method performs comparatively to results available with well-established methods. This paper presents a set of ten baseline techniques and their relative performances on five popular benchmarks. The aim of this contribution is to stimulate thought and discussion regarding objective comparison of identification methodologies.

Related papers

• Reassessing the Validity of Spurious Correlations Benchmarks [13.056731788383257]
  We present a recipe for practitioners to choose methods using the most similar benchmark to their given problem. We find that certain benchmarks are not meaningful measures of method performance, and that several methods are not sufficiently robust for widespread use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T11:05:26Z)
• A Critical Re-evaluation of Benchmark Datasets for (Deep) Learning-Based Matching Algorithms [11.264467955516706]
  We propose four approaches to assessing the difficulty and appropriateness of 13 established datasets. We show that most of the popular datasets pose rather easy classification tasks. We propose a new methodology for yielding benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-03T07:54:54Z)
• Better Understanding Differences in Attribution Methods via Systematic Evaluations [57.35035463793008]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We use these evaluation schemes to study strengths and shortcomings of some widely used attribution methods over a wide range of models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-21T14:24:58Z)
• In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
  This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z)
• On the role of benchmarking data sets and simulations in method comparison studies [0.0]
  This paper investigates differences and similarities between simulation studies and benchmarking studies. We borrow ideas from different contexts such as mixed methods research and Clinical Scenario Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-02T13:47:53Z)
• Towards Better Understanding Attribution Methods [77.1487219861185]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We also propose a post-processing smoothing step that significantly improves the performance of some attribution methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T20:50:17Z)
• On Modality Bias Recognition and Reduction [70.69194431713825]
  We study the modality bias problem in the context of multi-modal classification. We propose a plug-and-play loss function method, whereby the feature space for each label is adaptively learned. Our method yields remarkable performance improvements compared with the baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-25T13:47:09Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)
• PONE: A Novel Automatic Evaluation Metric for Open-Domain Generative Dialogue Systems [48.99561874529323]
  There are three kinds of automatic methods to evaluate the open-domain generative dialogue systems. Due to the lack of systematic comparison, it is not clear which kind of metrics are more effective. We propose a novel and feasible learning-based metric that can significantly improve the correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T04:36:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.