Skip to content

is range_evolve a good measure for stationarity? #74

Description

@reyntjesr

I used your package to extract features from a timeseries. I managed to reduce the classification to just 10 features. Among them was the SY_RangeEvolve totnuq feature. After visually checking validation data after classification I noticed the strange behavior of this feature.

Suppose I have two signals
Signal (y): [10, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
Reversed Signal (y rev ): [10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, 10]
The reversed signal is the normal signal but just reversed.

The totnuq of the first signal is 2 and the totnuq of the reversed signal is 11. It seems strange to me that a measure for stationarity depends so much on this.

Can't you add an option to do range_evolve once on a normal segment and then on a reversed segment. And then select the maximum of the two?

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions