Brandon Schreiber

Jordan Tschida, Matthew Yohe, Edward Kane et al.

Time series classification (TSC) of biological signals has progressed from handcrafted, modality-specific approaches to deep architectures capable of representing the diverse waveform structures of underlying physiological processes (i.e., morphology). This review introduces a unified morphology--modality framework that connects waveform structure to a methodological design, revealing how spikes, bursts, oscillations, slow drift, and hierarchical rhythms inform model design. By analyzing electroencephalography, electromyography, electrocardiography, photoplethysmography, and ocular modalities (electrooculography, pupillometry, eye-tracking), the review demonstrates how morphology determines preprocessing and modeling strategies. Integrating evidence across these biological signals, the framework reveals that morphology, not model class, most strongly determines performance and interpretability. This provides insight into why deep models succeed when their inductive biases align with underlying waveform dynamics. This review also identifies future work including morphological data augmentation and evaluation metrics to improve generalization. Together, these insights position morphology-aware modeling as a unifying principle for developing generalizable, interpretable, and physiologically meaningful TSC models across biological signals.

Samuel Hildebrand, Curtis Taylor, Sean Oesch et al.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving factual accuracy in large language models (LLMs). We introduce a benchmark designed to evaluate RAG pipelines as a whole, evaluating a pipeline's ability to ingest, retrieve, and reason about several modalities of information, differentiating it from existing benchmarks that focus on particular aspects such as retrieval. We present (1) a small, human-created dataset of 93 questions designed to evaluate a pipeline's ability to ingest textual data, tables, images, and data spread across these modalities in one or more documents; (2) a phrase-level recall metric for correctness; (3) a nearest-neighbor embedding classifier to identify potential pipeline hallucinations; (4) a comparative evaluation of 2 pipelines built with open-source retrieval mechanisms and 4 closed-source foundation models; and (5) a third-party human evaluation of the alignment of our correctness and hallucination metrics. We find that closed-source pipelines significantly outperform open-source pipelines in both correctness and hallucination metrics, with wider performance gaps in questions relying on multimodal and cross-document information. Human evaluation of our metrics showed average agreement of 4.62 for correctness and 4.53 for hallucination detection on a 1-5 Likert scale (5 indicating "strongly agree").