← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2510.14254 · v2
Benchmarking Generalist and Specialist Time-Series Foundation Models for PPG-Based Health Assessment
首次提交 2025-10-16 11:13
版本更新 2026-11-03 01:12
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:41
摘要
Time-series Foundation Models (FMs) are pretrained on either heterogeneous corpora or specific signal domains. Using Photoplethysmography (PPG) as a representative modality, we compare generalist time-series FMs, PPG-specialist FMs, and traditional machine learning (ML) baselines for PPG-based health assessment. We conduct a two-stage benchmark. First, we evaluate multiple FM families across 23 downstream evaluations (e.g., atrial fibrillation detection, vital-sign estimation). Second, we conduct a focused four-FM comparison (MOMENT, Chronos-2, GPT-PPG, MOMENT-PPG) at multiple model sizes on an expanded 51-task suite, under both frozen-backbone and full-model tuning, to study tuning strategy, model scaling, and cross-dataset transfer. The multi-model benchmark shows that PPG-specialist FMs achieve the strongest aggregate performance, but their advantage is not uniform: generalist FMs remain competitive on several tasks, and traditional ML baselines outperform FMs on selected clinical regression tasks. The focused analysis shows that the advantage of PPG-specific pretraining appears mainly with frozen backbones and on targets that the waveform directly reflects, such as atrial fibrillation and vital signs. Full-model tuning narrows this advantage, model rankings change with the tuning strategy, and the largest model variant is the best choice in only about one-third of cases. Additionally, controlled experiments with two generalist models show that initializing PPG pretraining from generalist checkpoints provides an early advantage over training from scratch, even when the pretrained features offer little downstream benefit. Together, these findings suggest that PPG-specific pretraining is useful but task-dependent, and that FMs should be evaluated against simpler statistical, traditional ML, and clinical history-based baselines.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v2 · 2026-11-03 01:12 · 最新观测版本
Benchmarking Generalist and Specialist Time-Series Foundation Models for PPG-Based Health Assessment
Time-series Foundation Models (FMs) are pretrained on either heterogeneous corpora or specific signal domains. Using Photoplethysmography (PPG) as a representative modality, we compare generalist time-series FMs, PPG-specialist FMs, and traditional machine learning (ML) baselines for PPG-based health assessment. We conduct a two-stage benchmark. First, we evaluate multiple FM families across 23 downstream evaluations (e.g., atrial fibrillation detection, vital-sign estimation). Second, we conduct a focused four-FM comparison (MOMENT, Chronos-2, GPT-PPG, MOMENT-PPG) at multiple model sizes on an expanded 51-task suite, under both frozen-backbone and full-model tuning, to study tuning strategy, model scaling, and cross-dataset transfer. The multi-model benchmark shows that PPG-specialist FMs achieve the strongest aggregate performance, but their advantage is not uniform: generalist FMs remain competitive on several tasks, and traditional ML baselines outperform FMs on selected clinical regression tasks. The focused analysis shows that the advantage of PPG-specific pretraining appears mainly with frozen backbones and on targets that the waveform directly reflects, such as atrial fibrillation and vital signs. Full-model tuning narrows this advantage, model rankings change with the tuning strategy, and the largest model variant is the best choice in only about one-third of cases. Additionally, controlled experiments with two generalist models show that initializing PPG pretraining from generalist checkpoints provides an early advantage over training from scratch, even when the pretrained features offer little downstream benefit. Together, these findings suggest that PPG-specific pretraining is useful but task-dependent, and that FMs should be evaluated against simpler statistical, traditional ML, and clinical history-based baselines.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗