Back to all available

TATS: Toolbox for time series data augmentation

algorithms-and-analysis-of-algorithms
computer-education
data-mining-and-machine-learning

Abstract

Augmenting time series data plays a crucial role in enhancing the generalization of classification models, especially in scenarios where labeled datasets are limited. By generating synthetic samples, data augmentation addresses the challenge of data scarcity, allowing models to learn more robust features and improve performance on unseen data. To support the development and evaluation of augmentation techniques, we introduce TATS: Toolbox for Time Series Data Augmentation, a comprehensive framework designed for generating synthetic time series. The toolbox includes ten augmentation methods and provides access to 17 benchmark time series datasets, enabling the design and comprehensive comparison of different augmentation approaches. TATS integrates classification pipelines based on Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) with k-nearest neighbors, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network, and four other classification methods, facilitating testing and benchmarking of new augmentation methods across various application domains. Implemented in MATLAB and available on GitHub (https://github.com/maroszII/TATS), TATS provides a standardized and extensible platform for advancing research in time series data augmentation.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].