Talk:Directional symmetry (time series)

This is a really lousy article!

It says it's about symmetry, and same/opposite directions, which makes me think it's about geometry, but then it says one tests for it in a certain way, and suddenly it's talking about---of all things!---signals! It's as if the author assumed that the reader SOMEHOW knew that _signals_ were what this is about! Michael Hardy (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the name is not an appropriate one, but the name is now widely used in time-series forecasting and signal estimation literature at least for a decade. in 2005 I found out that there is no page in Wikipedia about this measure, so I created one. Therefore, I think it is not possible to remove this page because it defines a widely used phrase in the literature. But, maybe some edits are needed to improve this page. I take your notice to some papers which have used this measure:

-Drossu, Radu, and Zoran Obradovic. "INFFC data analysis: lower bounds and testbed design recommendations." Computational Intelligence for Financial Engineering (CIFEr), 1997., Proceedings of the IEEE/IAFE 1997. IEEE, 1997.

-Tay, Francis EH, and Lijuan Cao. "Application of support vector machines in financial time series forecasting." Omega 29.4 (2001): 309-317.

-Xiong, Tao, Yukun Bao, and Zhongyi Hu. "Beyond one-step-ahead forecasting: Evaluation of alternative multi-step-ahead forecasting models for crude oil prices." Energy Economics 40 (2013): 405-415..

Thanks for your attention. Ses (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this measure shows whether two signals are moving in a symmetric synchronized directions or they move in opposite directions, so it is about signals not geometric objects. Ses (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much work is still needed

In the field of time series, it's still not clear whether the title "directional symmetry" might need further disambiguation. The article needs a lot of work if indeed it ought to exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]