Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
William Toner
dblp:353/0499
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 36% Learning theory · 32% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 32% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Data mining · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › model adaptation
online adaptation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Lightweight Online Adaption for Time Series Foundation Model Forecasts · ICML 2025 |
Data mining › time series analysis
time series forecasting |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Lightweight Online Adaption for Time Series Foundation Model Forecasts · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › regression
linear regression |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | An Analysis of Linear Time Series Forecasting Models · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
model expressivity |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | An Analysis of Linear Time Series Forecasting Models · ICML 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
online feedback · 1.7forecast combination · 1.7linear regression · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Lightweight Online Adaption for Time Series Foundation Model ForecastsabstractFoundation models (FMs) have emerged as a promising approach for time series forecasting. While effective, FMs typically remain fixed during deployment due to the high computational costs of learning them online. Consequently, deployed FMs fail to adapt their forecasts to current data characteristics, despite the availability of online feedback from newly arriving data. This raises the question of whether FM performance can be enhanced by the efficient usage of this feedback. We propose ELF to answer this question. ELF is a lightweight mechanism for the online adaption of FM forecasts in response to online feedback. ELF consists of two parts: a) the ELF-Forecaster which is used to learn the current data distribution; and b) the ELF-Weighter which is used to combine the forecasts of the FM and the ELF-Forecaster. We evaluate the performance of ELF in conjunction with several recent FMs across a suite of standard time series datasets. In all of our experiments we find that using ELF improves performance. This work demonstrates how efficient usage of online feedback can be used to improve FM forecasts. Thomas L. Lee, William Toner, Rajkarn Singh, Artjom Joosen, Martin Asenov |
ICML | 2 |
| 2024 | An Analysis of Linear Time Series Forecasting ModelsabstractDespite their simplicity, linear models perform well at time series forecasting, even when pitted against deeper and more expensive models. A number of variations to the linear model have been proposed, often including some form of feature normalisation that improves model generalisation. In this paper we analyse the sets of functions expressible using these linear model architectures. In so doing we show that several popular variants of linear models for time series forecasting are equivalent and functionally indistinguishable from standard, unconstrained linear regression. We characterise the model classes for each linear variant. We demonstrate that each model can be reinterpreted as unconstrained linear regression over a suitably augmented feature set, and therefore admit closed-form solutions when using a mean-squared loss function. We provide experimental evidence that the models under inspection learn nearly identical solutions, and finally demonstrate that the simpler closed form solutions are superior forecasters across 72% dataset-horizon settings. William Toner, Luke Nicholas Darlow |
ICML | 1 |