Shape and Time Distortion Loss for Training Deep Time Series

Preparing to load PDF file. please wait...

0 of 0
100%
Shape and Time Distortion Loss for Training Deep Time Series

Transcript Of Shape and Time Distortion Loss for Training Deep Time Series

Shape and Time Distortion Loss for Training Deep Time Series Forecasting Models

Vincent Le Guen 1,2 [email protected]

Nicolas Thome 2 [email protected]

(1) EDF R&D 6 quai Watier, 78401 Chatou, France
(2) CEDRIC, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers 292 rue Saint-Martin, 75003 Paris, France

Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of time series forecasting for non-stationary signals and multiple future steps prediction. To handle this challenging task, we introduce DILATE (DIstortion Loss including shApe and TimE), a new objective function for training deep neural networks. DILATE aims at accurately predicting sudden changes, and explicitly incorporates two terms supporting precise shape and temporal change detection. We introduce a differentiable loss function suitable for training deep neural nets, and provide a custom back-prop implementation for speeding up optimization. We also introduce a variant of DILATE, which provides a smooth generalization of temporally-constrained Dynamic Time Warping (DTW). Experiments carried out on various non-stationary datasets reveal the very good behaviour of DILATE compared to models trained with the standard Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss function, and also to DTW and variants. DILATE is also agnostic to the choice of the model, and we highlight its benefit for training fully connected networks as well as specialized recurrent architectures, showing its capacity to improve over state-of-the-art trajectory forecasting approaches.
1 Introduction
Time series forecasting [6] consists in analyzing the dynamics and correlations between historical data for predicting future behavior. In one-step prediction problems [39, 30], future prediction reduces to a single scalar value. This is in sharp contrast with multi-step time series prediction [49, 2, 48], which consists in predicting a complete trajectory of future data at a rather long temporal extent. Multi-step forecasting thus requires to accurately describe time series evolution.
This work focuses on multi-step forecasting problems for non-stationary signals, i.e. when future data cannot only be inferred from the past periodicity, and when abrupt changes of regime can occur. This includes important and diverse application fields, e.g. regulating electricity consumption [63, 36], predicting sharp discontinuities in renewable energy production [23] or in traffic flow [35, 34], electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis [9], stock markets prediction [14], etc.
Deep learning is an appealing solution for this multi-step and non-stationary prediction problem, due to the ability of deep neural networks to model complex nonlinear time dependencies. Many approaches have recently been proposed, mostly relying on the design of specific one-step ahead
33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2019), Vancouver, Canada.

(a) Non informative prediction (b) Correct shape, time delay (c) Correct time, inaccurate shape
Figure 1: Limitation of the euclidean (MSE) loss: when predicting a sudden change (target blue step function), the 3 predictions (a), (b) and (c) have similar MSE but very different forecasting skills. In contrast, the DILATE loss proposed in this work, which disentangles shape and temporal decay terms, supports predictions (b) and (c) over prediction (a) that does not capture the sharp change of regime.
architectures recursively applied for multi-step [24, 26, 7, 5], on direct multi-step models [3] such as Sequence To Sequence [34, 60, 57, 61] or State Space Models for probabilistic forecasts [44, 40].
Regarding training, the huge majority of methods use the Mean Squared Error (MSE) or its variants (MAE, etc) as loss functions. However, relying on MSE may arguably be inadequate in our context, as illustrated in Fig 1. Here, the target ground truth prediction is a step function (in blue), and we present three predictions, shown in Fig 1(a), (b), and (c), which have a similar MSE loss compared to the target, but very different forecasting skills. Prediction (a) is not adequate for regulation purposes since it doesn’t capture the sharp drop to come. Predictions (b) and (c) much better reflect the change of regime since the sharp drop is indeed anticipated, although with a slight delay (b) or with a slight inaccurate amplitude (c).
This paper introduces DILATE (DIstortion Loss including shApe and TimE), a new objective function for training deep neural networks in the context of multi-step and non-stationary time series forecasting. DILATE explicitly disentangles into two terms the penalization related to the shape and the temporal localization errors of change detection (section 3). The behaviour of DILATE is shown in Fig 1: whereas the values of our proposed shape and temporal losses are large in Fig 1(a), the shape (resp. temporal) term is small in Fig 1(b) (resp. Fig 1(c)). DILATE combines shape and temporal terms, and is consequently able to output a much smaller loss for predictions (b) and (c) than for (a), as expected.
To train deep neural nets with DILATE, we derive a differentiable loss function for both shape and temporal terms (section 3.1), and an efficient and custom back-prop implementation for speeding up optimization (section 3.2). We also introduce a variant of DILATE, which provides a smooth generalization of temporally-constrained Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) metrics [43, 28]. Experiments carried out on several synthetic and real non-stationary datasets reveal that models trained with DILATE significantly outperform models trained with the MSE loss function when evaluated with shape and temporal distortion metrics, while DILATE maintains very good performance when evaluated with MSE. Finally, we show that DILATE can be used with various network architectures and can outperform on shape and time metrics state-of-the-art models specifically designed for multi-step and non-stationary forecasting.
2 Related work
Time series forecasting Traditional methods for time series forecasting include linear autoregressive models, such as the ARIMA model [6], and Exponential Smoothing [27], which both fall into the broad category of linear State Space Models (SSMs) [17]. These methods handle linear dynamics and stationary time series (or made stationary by temporal differences). However the stationarity assumption is not satisfied for many real world time series that can present abrupt changes of distribution. Since, Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and variants such as Long Short Term Memory Networks (LSTMs) [25] have become popular due to their automatic feature extraction abilities, complex patterns and long term dependencies modeling. In the era of deep learning, much effort has been recently devoted to tackle multivariate time series forecasting with a huge number of input
2

series [31], by leveraging attention mechanisms [30, 39, 50, 12] or tensor factorizations [60, 58, 46] for capturing shared information between series. Another current trend is to combine deep learning and State Space Models for modeling uncertainty [45, 44, 40, 56]. In this paper we focus on deterministic multi-step forecasting. To this end, the most common approach is to apply recursively a one-step ahead trained model. Although mono-step learned models can be adapted and improved for the multi-step setting [55], a thorough comparison of the different multi-step strategies [48] has recommended the direct multi-horizon strategy. Of particular interest in this category are Sequence To Sequence (Seq2Seq) RNNs models 1 [44, 31, 60, 57, 19] which achieved great success in machine translation. Theoretical generalization bounds for Seq2Seq forecasting were derived with an additional discrepancy term quantifying the non-stationarity of time series [29]. Following the success of WaveNet for audio generation [53], Convolutional Neural Networks with dilation have become a popular alternative for time series forecasting [5]. The self-attention Transformer architecture [54] was also lately investigated for accessing long-range context regardless of distance [32]. We highlight that our proposed loss function can be used for training any direct multi-step deep architecture.
Evaluation and training metrics The largely dominant loss function to train and evaluate deep models is the MAE, MSE and its variants (SMAPE, etc). Metrics reflecting shape and temporal localization exist: Dynamic Time Warping [43] for shape ; timing errors can be casted as a detection problem by computing Precision and Recall scores after segmenting series by Change Point Detection [8, 33], or by computing the Hausdorff distance between two sets of change points [22, 51]. For assessing the detection of ramps in wind and solar energy forecasting, specific algorithms were designed: for shape, the ramp score [18, 52] based on a piecewise linear approximation of the derivatives of time series; for temporal error estimation, the Temporal Distortion Index (TDI) [20, 52]. However, these evaluation metrics are not differentiable, making them unusable as loss functions for training deep neural networks. The impossibility to directly optimize the appropriate (often non-differentiable) evaluation metric for a given task has bolstered efforts to design good surrogate losses in various domains, for example in ranking [15, 62] or computer vision [38, 59].
Recently, some attempts have been made to train deep neural networks based on alternatives to MSE, especially based on a smooth approximation of the Dynamic time warping (DTW) [13, 37, 1]. Training DNNs with a DTW loss enables to focus on the shape error between two signals. However, since DTW is by design invariant to elastic distortions, it completely ignores the temporal localization of the change. In our context of sharp change detection, both shape and temporal distortions are crucial to provide an adequate forecast. A differentiable timing error loss function based on DTW on the event (binary) space was proposed in [41] ; however it is only applicable for predicting binary time series. This paper specifically focuses on designing a loss function able to disentangle shape and temporal delay terms for training deep neural networks on real world time series.

3 Training Deep Neural Networks with DILATE

Our proposed framework for multi-step forecasting is depicted in Figure 2. During training, we

consider a set of N input time series A = {xi}i∈{1:N}. For each input example of length n,

i.e.

xi

=

(

x

1 i

,

...,

x

n i

)



Rp×n,

a

forecasting

model

such

as

a

neural

network

predicts

the

future

k-step ahead trajectory yˆi = (yˆi1, ..., yˆik) ∈ Rd×k. Our DILATE objective function, which compares

this

prediction

yˆi

with

the

actual

ground

truth

future

trajectory


yi

=

(y∗ i1, ..., y∗ ik)

of

length

k,

is

composed of two terms balanced by the hyperparameter α ∈ [0, 1]:







LDILAT E (yˆi, yi) = α Lshape(yˆi, yi) + (1 − α) Ltemporal(yˆi, yi)

(1)





Notations and definitions Both our shape Lshape(yˆi, yi) and temporal Ltemporal(yˆi, yi) distor-

tions

terms

are

based

on

the

alignment

between

predicted

yˆi



Rd×k

and

ground

truth


yi



Rd×k

time series. We define a warping path as a binary matrix A ⊂ {0, 1}k×k with Ah,j = 1 if yˆih is associ-

ated to y∗ ij, and 0 otherwise. The set of all valid warping paths connecting the endpoints (1, 1) to (k, k)

1A Seq2Seq architecture was the winner of a 2017 Kaggle competition on multi-step time series forecasting (https://www.kaggle.com/c/web-traffic-time-series-forecasting)

3

Figure 2: Our proposed framework for training deep forecasting models.

with the authorized moves →, ↓,

(step

condition)

is

noted

Ak,k .

Let

∆(yˆi,


yi)

:=

[δ(yˆih,

y∗ ij)]h,j

be the pairwise cost matrix, where δ is a given dissimilarity between yˆih and y∗ ij, e.g. the euclidean

distance.

3.1 Shape and temporal terms

Shape term Our shape loss function is based on the Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) [43], which





corresponds to the following optimization problem: DT W (yˆi, yi) = min A, ∆(yˆi, yi) .

A∈Ak,k

A∗ = arg min


A, ∆(yˆi, yi)


is the optimal association (path) between yˆi and yi. By temporally

A∈Ak,k


aligning the predicted yˆi and ground truth yi time series, the DTW loss focuses on the structural

shape dissimilarity between signals. The DTW, however, is known to be non-differentiable. We use

the smooth min operator minγ(a1, ..., an) = −γ log(

n i

exp(−ai/γ))

with

γ

>

0

proposed

in

[13]

to define our differentiable shape term Lshape:





∗ 





A, ∆(yˆi, yi)

Lshape(yˆi, yi) = DT Wγ (yˆi, yi) := −γ log 

exp −

γ

 (2)

A∈Ak,k

Temporal term Our second term Ltemporal in Eq (1) aims at penalizing temporal distortions

between

yˆi

and


yi.

Our

analysis

is

based

on

the

optimal

DTW

path

A∗

between

yˆi

and


yi.

A∗

is used to register both time series when computing DTW and provide a time-distortion invariant

loss.

Here,

we

analyze

the

form

of

A∗

to

compute

the

temporal

distortions

between

yˆi

and


yi.

More

precisely, our loss function is inspired from computing the Time Distortion Index (TDI) for temporal

misalignment estimation [20, 52], which basically consists in computing the deviation between the

optimal DTW path A∗ and the first diagonal. We first rewrite a generalized TDI loss function with

our notations:


T DI(yˆi, yi) =

A∗, Ω

=


arg min A, ∆(yˆi, yi) , Ω

(3)

A∈Ak,k

where Ω is a square matrix of size k × k penalizing each element yˆih being associated to an y∗ ji , for h = j. In our experiments we choose a squared penalization, e.g. Ω(h, j) = 1 (h − j)2, but other
k2

4

Figure 3: DILATE loss computation for separating the shape and temporal errors.

variants could be used. Note that prior knowledge can also be incorporated in the Ω matrix structure, e.g. to penalize more heavily late than early predictions (and vice versa).

The TDI loss function in Eq (3) is still non-differentiable. Here, we cannot directly use the same

smoothing technique that for defining DTWγ in Eq (2), since the minimization involves two different quantities Ω and ∆. Since the optimal path A∗ is itself non-differentiable, we use the fact that

A∗

=

∇∆DT W (yˆi,


yi)

to

define

a

smooth

approximation

A∗γ

of

the

arg

min

operator,

i.e.

:





A,∆(yˆi ,yi )

A,∆(yˆi ,yi )

A∗γ

=


∇∆DT Wγ (yˆi, yi)

=

1/Z

A∈A A exp−

γ

, with Z = A∈A exp−

γ

k,k

k,k

being the partition function. Based on A∗γ, we obtain our smoothed temporal loss from Eq (3):


Ltemporal(yˆi, y∗ i) := A∗γ , Ω = Z1 A, Ω exp− A,∆(γyˆi,yi) (4)
A∈Ak,k

3.2 DILATE Efficient Forward and Backward Implementation
The direct computation of our shape and temporal losses in Eq (2) and Eq (4) is intractable, due to the cardinal of Ak,k, which exponentially grows with k. We provide a careful implementation of the forward and backward passes in order to make learning efficient.

Shape loss Regarding Lshape, we rely on [13] to efficiently compute the forward pass with a variant of the Bellmann dynamic programming approach [4]. For the backward pass, we implement the recursion proposed in [13] in a custom Pytorch loss. This implementation is much more efficient than relying on vanilla auto-differentiation, since it reuses intermediate results from the forward pass.

Temporal loss For Ltemporal, note that the bottleneck for the forward pass in Eq (4) is to com-

pute

A∗γ

=


∇∆DT Wγ (yˆi, yi),

which

we

implement

as

explained

for

the

Lshape

backward

pass.

Regarding

Ltemporal

backward

pass,

we

need

to

compute

the

Hessian

∇2DT Wγ (yˆi,


yi).

We

use

the method proposed in [37], based on a dynamic programming implementation that we embed in a

custom Pytorch loss. Again, our back-prop implementation allows a significant speed-up compared

to standard auto-differentiation (see section 4.4).

The resulting time complexity of both shape and temporal losses for forward and backward is O(k2).

Discussion A variant of our approach to combine shape and temporal penalization would be to incorporate a temporal term inside our smooth Lshape function in Eq (2), i.e. :











A, α∆(yˆi, yi) + (1 − α)Ω

LDILAT Et (yˆi, yi) := −γ log 

exp −

γ

 (5)

A∈Ak,k

5

We can notice that Eq (5) reduces to minimizing


A, α∆(yˆi, yi) + (1 − α)Ω

when γ → 0+. In

this case, LDILAT Et can recover DTW variants studied in the literature to bias the computation based on penalizing sequence misalignment, by designing specific Ω matrices:

Sakoe-Chiba DTW hard band constraint [43] Ω(h, j) = +∞ if |h − j| > T , 0 otherwise

Weighted DTW [28]

Ω(h, j) = f (|i − j|), f increasing function

LDILAT Et in Eq (5) enables to train deep neural networks with a smooth loss combining shape and temporal criteria. However, LDILAT Et presents limited capacities for disentangling the shape and temporal errors, since the optimal path is computed from both shape and temporal terms. In contrast, our LDILAT E loss in Eq (1) separates the loss into two shape and temporal misalignment components, the temporal penalization being applied to the optimal unconstrained DTW path. We verify experimentally that our LDILAT E outperforms its "tangled" version LDILAT Et (section 4.3).

4 Experiments
4.1 Experimental setup
Datasets: To illustrate the relevance of DILATE, we carry out experiments on 3 non-stationary time series datasets from different domains (see examples in Fig 4). The multi-step evaluation consists in forecasting the future trajectory on k future time steps. Synthetic (k = 20) dataset consists in predicting sudden changes (step functions) based on an input signal composed of two peaks. This controlled setup was designed to measure precisely the shape and time errors of predictions. We generate 500 times series for train, 500 for validation and 500 for test, with 40 time steps: the first 20 are the inputs, the last 20 are the targets to forecast. In each series, the input range is composed of 2 peaks of random temporal position i1 and i2 and random amplitude j1 and j2 between 0 and 1, and the target range is composed of a step of amplitude j2 − j1 and stochastic position i2 + (i2 − i1) + randint(−3, 3). All time series are corrupted by an additive gaussian white noise of variance 0.01.
ECG5000 (k = 56) dataset comes from the UCR Time Series Classification Archive [10], and is composed of 5000 electrocardiograms (ECG) (500 for training, 4500 for testing) of length 140. We take the first 84 time steps (60 %) as input and predict the last 56 steps (40 %) of each time series (same setup as in [13]). Traffic (k = 24) dataset corresponds to road occupancy rates (between 0 and 1) from the California Department of Transportation (48 months from 2015-2016) measured every 1h. We work on the first univariate series of length 17544 (with the same 60/20/20 train/valid/test split as in [30]), and we train models to predict the 24 future points given the past 168 points (past week).
Network architectures and training: We perform multi-step forecasting with two kinds of neural network architectures: a fully connected network (1 layer of 128 neurons), which does not make any assumption on data structure, and a more specialized Seq2Seq model [47] with Gated Recurrent Units (GRU) [11] with 1 layer of 128 units. Each model is trained with PyTorch for a max number of 1000 epochs with Early Stopping with the ADAM optimizer. The smoothing parameter γ of DTW and TDI is set to 10−2. The hyperparameter α balancing Lshape and Ltemporal is determined on a validation set to get comparable DTW shape performance than the DT Wγ trained model: α = 0.5 for Synthetic and ECG5000, and 0.8 for Traffic. Our code implementing DILATE is available on line from https://github.com/vincent-leguen/DILATE.

4.2 DILATE forecasting performances
We evaluate the performances of DILATE, and compare it against two strong baselines: the widely used Euclidean (MSE) loss, and the smooth DTW introduced in [13, 37]. For each experiment, we use the same neural network architecture (section 4.1), in order to isolate the impact of the training loss and to enable fair comparisons. The results are evaluated using three metrics: MSE, DTW (shape) and TDI (temporal). We perform a Student t-test with significance level 0.05 to highlight the best(s) method(s) in each experiment (averaged over 10 runs).
Overall results are presented in Table 1.

6

Dataset Synth ECG Traffic

Eval MSE DTW TDI MSE DTW TDI MSE DTW TDI

Fully connected network (MLP)

MSE

DTWγ [13] DILATE (ours)

1.65 ± 0.14

4.82 ± 0.40 1.67± 0.184

38.6 ± 1.28

27.3 ± 1.37

32.1 ± 5.33

15.3 ± 1.39

26.9 ± 4.16 13.8 ± 0.712

31.5 ± 1.39

70.9 ± 37.2

37.2 ± 3.59

19.5 ± 0.159 18.4 ± 0.749 17.7 ± 0.427

7.58 ± 0.192 38.9 ± 8.76 7.21 ± 0.886

0.620 ± 0.010 2.52 ± 0.230 1.93 ± 0.080

24.6 ± 0.180

23.4 ± 5.40

23.1 ± 0.41

16.8 ± 0.799 27.4 ± 5.01 16.7 ± 0.508

Recurrent neural network (Seq2Seq)

MSE

DTWγ [13] DILATE (ours)

1.10 ± 0.17

2.31 ± 0.45

1.21 ± 0.13

24.6 ± 1.20

22.7 ± 3.55

23.1 ± 2.44

17.2 ± 1.22

20.0 ± 3.72

14.8 ± 1.29

21.2 ± 2.24

75.1 ± 6.30

30.3 ± 4.10

17.8 ± 1.62 17.1 ± 0.650 16.1 ± 0.156

8.27 ± 1.03) 27.2 ± 11.1 6.59 ± 0.786

0.890 ± 0.11 2.22 ± 0.26 1.00 ± 0.260

24.6 ± 1.85

22.6 ± 1.34

23.0 ± 1.62

15.4 ± 2.25 22.3 ± 3.66

14.4± 1.58

Table 1: Forecasting results evaluated with MSE (×100), DTW (×100) and TDI (×10) metrics, averaged over 10 runs (mean ± standard deviation). For each experiment, best method(s) (Student t-test) in bold.

MSE comparison: DILATE outperforms MSE when evaluated on shape (DTW) in all experiments, with significant differences on 5/6 experiments. When evaluated on time (TDI), DILATE also performs better in all experiments (significant differences on 3/6 tests). Finally, DILATE is equivalent to MSE when evaluated on MSE on 3/6 experiments.
DTWγ [13, 37] comparison: When evaluated on shape (DTW), DILATE performs similarly to DTWγ (2 significant improvements, 1 significant drop and 3 equivalent performances). For time (TDI) and MSE evaluations, DILATE is significantly better than DTWγ in all experiments, as expected.
We display a few qualitative examples for Synthetic, ECG5000 and Traffic datasets on Fig 4 (other examples are provided in supplementary 2). We see that MSE training leads to predictions that are non-sharp, making them inadequate in presence of drops or sharp spikes. DTWγ leads to very sharp predictions in shape, but with a possibly large temporal misalignment. In contrast, our DILATE predicts series that have both a correct shape and precise temporal localization.

Figure 4: Qualitative forecasting results. 7

Evaluation with external metrics To consolidate the good behaviour of our loss function seen in Table 1, we extend the comparison using two additional (non differentiable) metrics for assessing shape and time. For shape, we compute the ramp score [52]. For time, we perform change point detection on both series and compute the Hausdorff measure between the sets of detected change points T ∗ (in the target signal) and Tˆ (in the predicted signal):

Hausdorff(T ∗, Tˆ ) := max(max min |tˆ− t∗|, max min|tˆ− t∗|)

(6)

tˆ∈Tˆ t∗∈T ∗

t∗∈T ∗ tˆ∈Tˆ

We provide more details about these external metrics in supplementary 1.1. In Table 2, we report the comparison between Seq2Seq models trained with DILATE, DTWγ and MSE. We see that DILATE is always better than MSE in shape (Ramp score) and equivalent to DTWγ in 2/3 experiments. In time (Hausdorff metric), DILATE is always better or equivalent compared to MSE (and always better than DTWγ, as expected).

MSE

DT Wγ [13] DILATE (ours)

Hausdorff

2.87 ± 0.127 3.45 ± 0.318 2.70 ± 0.166

Synthetic Ramp score (×10) 5.80 ± 0.104 4.27 ± 0.800 4.99 ± 0.460

Hausdorff

4.32 ± 0.505 6.16 ± 0.854 4.23 ± 0.414

ECG5000 Ramp score

4.84 ± 0.240 4.79 ± 0.365 4.80 ± 0.249

Hausdorff

2.16 ± 0.378 2.29 ± 0.329 2.13 ± 0.514

Traffic

Ramp score (×10) 6.29 ± 0.319 5.78 ± 0.404 5.93 ± 0.235

Table 2: Forecasting results of Seq2Seq evaluated with Hausdorff and Ramp Score, averaged over 10

runs (mean ± standard deviation). For each experiment, best method(s) (Student t-test) in bold.

4.3 Comparison to temporally constrained versions of DTW
In Table 3, we compare the Seq2Seq DILATE to its tangled variants Weighted DTW (DILATEt-W) [28] and Band Constraint (DILATEt-BC) [43] on the Synthetic dataset. We observe that DILATE performances are similar in shape for both the DTW and ramp metrics and better in time than both variants. This shows that our DILATE leads a finer disentanglement of shape and time components. Results for ECG5000 and Traffic are consistent and given in supplementary 3. We also analyze the gradient of DILATE vs DILATEt-W in supplementary 3, showing that DILATEt-W gradients are smaller at low temporal shifts, certainly explaining the superiority of our approach when evaluated with temporal metrics. Qualitative predictions are also provided in supplementary 3.

Eval loss

DILATE (ours) DILATEt-W [28] DILATEt-BC [43]

Euclidian MSE (×100) 1.21 ± 0.130 1.36 ± 0.107

1.83 ± 0.163

Shape

DTW (×100) 23.1 ± 2.44

20.5 ± 2.49

21.6 ± 1.74

Ramp

4.99 ± 0.460 5.56 ± 0.87

5.23 ±0.439

Time

TDI (×10) 14.8 ± 1.29

17.8 ± 1.72

19.6 ± 1.72

Hausdorff

2.70 ± 0.166 2.85 ± 0.210

3.30 ± 0.273

Table 3: Comparison to the tangled variants of DILATE for the Seq2Seq model on the Synthetic

dataset, averaged over 10 runs (mean ± standard deviation).

4.4 DILATE Analysis
Custom backward implementation speedup: We compare in Fig 5(a) the computational time between the standard Pytorch auto-differentiation mechanism and our custom backward pass implementation (section 3.2). We plot the speedup of our implementation with respect to the prediction length k (averaged over 10 random target/prediction tuples). We notice the increasing speedup with respect to k: speedup of × 20 for 20 steps ahead and up to × 35 for 100 steps ahead predictions.
Impact of α (Fig 5(b)): When α = 1, LDILAT E reduces to DTWγ, with a good shape but large temporal error. When α −→ 0, we only minimize Ltemporal without any shape constraint. Both MSE and shape errors explode in this case, illustrating the fact that Ltemporal is only meaningful in conjunction with Lshape.
8

Figure 5(a): Speedup of DILATE

Figure 5(b): Influence of α

4.5 Comparison to state of the art time series forecasting models
Finally, we compare our Seq2Seq model trained with DILATE with two recent state-of-the-art deep architectures for time series forecasting trained with MSE: LSTNet [30] trained for one-step prediction that we apply recursively for multi-step (LSTNet-rec) ; and Tensor-Train RNN (TT-RNN) [60] trained for multi-step2. Results in Table 4 for the traffic dataset reveal the superiority of TT-RNN over LSTNet-rec, which shows that dedicated multi-step prediction approaches are better suited for this task. More importantly, we can observe that our Seq2Seq DILATE outperforms TT-RNN in all shape and time metrics, although it is inferior on MSE. This highlights the relevance of our DILATE loss function, which enables to reach better performances with simpler architectures.

Eval loss

LSTNet-rec [30] TT-RNN [60, 61] Seq2Seq DILATE

Euclidian MSE (x100) 1.74 ± 0.11

0.837 ± 0.106 1.00 ± 0.260

Shape

DTW (x100) 42.0 ± 2.2

25.9 ± 1.99

23.0 ± 1.62

Ramp (x10) 9.00 ± 0.577

6.71 ± 0.546

5.93 ± 0.235

Time

TDI (x10) 25.7 ± 4.75

17.8 ± 1.73

14.4 ± 1.58

Hausdorff 2.34 ± 1.41

2.19 ± 0.125

2.13 ± 0.514

Table 4: Comparison with state-of-the-art forecasting architectures trained with MSE on Traffic,

averaged over 10 runs (mean ± standard deviation).

5 Conclusion and future work
In this paper, we have introduced DILATE, a new differentiable loss function for training deep multistep time series forecasting models. DILATE combines two terms for precise shape and temporal localization of non-stationary signals with sudden changes. We showed that DILATE is comparable to the standard MSE loss when evaluated on MSE, and far better when evaluated on several shape and timing metrics. DILATE compares favourably on shape and timing to state-of-the-art forecasting algorithms trained with the MSE.
For future work we intend to explore the extension of these ideas to probabilistic forecasting, for example by using bayesian deep learning [21] to compute the predictive distribution of trajectories, or by embedding the DILATE loss into a deep state space model architecture suited for probabilistic forecasting. Another interesting direction is to adapt our training scheme to relaxed supervision contexts, e.g. semi-supervised [42] or weakly supervised [16], in order to perform full trajectory forecasting using only categorical labels at training time (e.g. presence or absence of change points).
Aknowledgements We would like to thank Stéphanie Dubost, Bruno Charbonnier, Christophe Chaussin, Loïc Vallance, Lorenzo Audibert, Nicolas Paul and our anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback and discussions.
2We use the available Github code for both methods.
9

References
[1] Abubakar Abid and James Zou. Learning a warping distance from unlabeled time series using sequence autoencoders. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 10547–10555, 2018.
[2] Nguyen Hoang An and Duong Tuan Anh. Comparison of strategies for multi-step-ahead prediction of time series using neural network. In International Conference on Advanced Computing and Applications (ACOMP), pages 142–149. IEEE, 2015.
[3] Yukun Bao, Tao Xiong, and Zhongyi Hu. Multi-step-ahead time series prediction using multipleoutput support vector regression. Neurocomputing, 129:482–493, 2014.
[4] Richard Bellman. On the theory of dynamic programming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 38(8):716, 1952.
[5] Anastasia Borovykh, Sander Bohte, and Cornelis W Oosterlee. Conditional time series forecasting with convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04691, 2017.
[6] George EP Box, Gwilym M Jenkins, Gregory C Reinsel, and Greta M Ljung. Time series analysis: forecasting and control. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
[7] Rohitash Chandra, Yew-Soon Ong, and Chi-Keong Goh. Co-evolutionary multi-task learning with predictive recurrence for multi-step chaotic time series prediction. Neurocomputing, 243:21–34, 2017.
[8] Wei-Cheng Chang, Chun-Liang Li, Yiming Yang, and Barnabás Póczos. Kernel change-point detection with auxiliary deep generative models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019.
[9] Sucheta Chauhan and Lovekesh Vig. Anomaly detection in ECG time signals via deep long short-term memory networks. In International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2015.
[10] Yanping Chen, Eamonn Keogh, Bing Hu, Nurjahan Begum, Anthony Bagnall, Abdullah Mueen, and Gustavo Batista. The UCR time series classification archive. 2015.
[11] Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merriënboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoderdecoder for statistical machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078, 2014.
[12] Edward Choi, Mohammad Taha Bahadori, Jimeng Sun, Joshua Kulas, Andy Schuetz, and Walter Stewart. RETAIN: An interpretable predictive model for healthcare using reverse time attention mechanism. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pages 3504–3512, 2016.
[13] Marco Cuturi and Mathieu Blondel. Soft-dtw: a differentiable loss function for time-series. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 894–903, 2017.
[14] Xiao Ding, Yue Zhang, Ting Liu, and Junwen Duan. Deep learning for event-driven stock prediction. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2015.
[15] Thibaut Durand, Nicolas Thome, and Matthieu Cord. Mantra: Minimum maximum latent structural svm for image classification and ranking. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 2713–2721, 2015.
[16] Thibaut Durand, Nicolas Thome, and Matthieu Cord. Exploiting negative evidence for deep latent structured models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 41(2):337–351, 2018.
[17] James Durbin and Siem Jan Koopman. Time series analysis by state space methods. Oxford university press, 2012.
10
ShapeMseDtwTrainingTime