Papers
arxiv:2610.31288

DISC: Domain-Integrated Similarity Cost for Time-Series Dataset

Published on Oct 22
· Submitted by
Franck Dernoncourt
on Oct 26
Authors:
,
,

Abstract

DISC is a learnable framework that calibrates and combines time-series dataset similarity metrics to better predict downstream forecasting transfer performance.

The growth of time-series datasets and foundation models has made dataset comparison a central part of time-series workflows. Assessing source-target transfer before model adaptation requires similarity estimates that can summarize transfer-related dataset relationships without exhaustive source-target evaluation over every candidate pair. Many metrics have been proposed for measuring similarity between time-series datasets, but they capture different dataset relationships and vary in how well they align with downstream utility across tasks. We evaluate this gap by measuring the correlation between source-target similarity scores and downstream forecasting errors in out-of-distribution and transfer-learning settings. We propose Domain-Integrated Similarity Cost (DISC), a learnable aggregation framework that uses calibration transfer observations to select, weight, and combine similarity metrics for different downstream tasks. By integrating complementary metric values, DISC better distinguishes source-target dataset differences that matter for downstream behavior. After calibration, DISC scores source-target pairs using only their similarity-metric values and yields higher alignment than single-metric references on the reported split. These results show that time-series dataset similarity is task-dependent, and that learned metric integration provides a stronger proxy for downstream transfer behavior than manually selecting one similarity metric.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter
•
This comment has been hidden

Before I'd trust a transfer-similarity score I'd want it benchmarked against the dumbest thing that works: fine-tune on 10% of the target for twenty minutes and see what comes out. If DISC can't beat that probe on cost, it's a nicer number, not a better decision. The catch is labels — a probe needs them, and on day one you have none, so the metric has to run on unlabeled target data or it's answering a question nobody asks at deploy time. That also shapes the honest eval: rank a pool of candidate sources, then check whether the top pick actually transfers better than a random pick, not whether the ranking correlates with some proxy label. I'd want to see it hold when the target is small — a few thousand windows, one sensor, gaps — because that's the regime where you're actually shopping for a pretrained checkpoint. Does the domain-integration term still earn its place there, or does it flatten into a plain distribution distance once the target is thin?

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2610.31288
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.31288 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.31288 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.31288 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.