Differentiable logic networks (DLNs) have shown promising results in tabular domains by combining accuracy, interpretability, and computational efficiency. In this work, we apply DLNs to the domain of TSC for the first time, focusing on univariate datasets. To enable DLN application in this context, we adopt feature-based representations relying on Catch22 and TSFresh, converting sequential time series into vectorized forms suitable for DLN classification. Unlike prior DLN studies that fix the training configuration and vary various settings in isolation via ablation, we integrate all such configurations into the hyperparameter search space, enabling the search process to select jointly optimal settings. We then analyze the distribution of selected configurations to better understand DLN training dynamics. We evaluate our approach on 51 publicly available univariate TSC benchmarks. The results confirm that classification DLNs maintain their core strengths in this new domain: they deliver competitive accuracy, retain low inference cost, and provide transparent, interpretable decision logic, thus aligning well with previous DLN findings in the realm of tabular classification and regression tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1 : Overview of the TSC-DLN architecture. The feature front-end transforms each raw time series into a fixed-dimensional vector, with continuous features scaled to [0,1] and categorical features represented as binary values. The ThresholdLayer converts continuous features into learned binary predicates, while categorical features enter the logical network directly. Each LogicLayer neuron selects two incoming signals, denoted by A and B (red and green connections, respectively), and implements one of the 16 two-input Boolean operations. The SumLayer aggregates selected logic outputs into one score per class, and the class with the highest score is predicted.
Figure 2 : Experimental workflow for TSC-DLN.
ID
Operator
Real-valued
00
01
10
11
0
False
0
0
0
0
0
1
A∧B
A⋅B
0
0
0
1
2
¬(A⇒B)
A−AB
0
0
1
0
3
A
A
0
0
1
1
4
¬(A⇐B)
B−AB
0
1
0
0
5
B
B
0
1
0
1
Table 2: List of all real-valued binary logic operations. Adapted from LGN [ 1 ] .
Figure 3 : Average balanced accuracy (best of 10 runs) versus inference operation cost for all models across 51 datasets. Results are shown for the Catch22, TSFresh-10, TSFresh-20, and TSFresh-40 transformations, with the Pareto frontier drawn for each case. SOTA time-series specific methods (the full TSFresh implementation, MiniRocket, and MultiRocket) are also included to contextualize the broader accuracy-cost landscape. Notably, DLN with TSFresh-40 outperforms the full TSFresh implementation in both accuracy and computational efficiency. The DLN is Pareto-optimal in every instance, and is the top-performing model with the TSFresh-40 transformation among the general classifiers
Figure 4 : Best@k curves for the five strongest models using the TSFresh-40 transformation. The DLN curve exhibits the fastest growth and achieves the best overall performance, given a sufficient number of independent HPO-and-training runs ( k≥7 ).
Batch Size
MLP
DLN
Batch = 1
72.0 μs
23.8 μs
Batch = 32
3.15 μs
2.78 μs
Table 5 : Classifier-stage inference latency ( μ s/sample) on CPU. Values are the geometric mean across all dataset-seed pairs, measured using single-threaded execution.
Figure 5 : Distribution of model training configurations selected by the HPO algorithm for each of the four transformation methods. The statistics are aggregated across all (dataset, random seed) pairs, with each bar representing results from 51×10=510 experiments.
Figure 6 : Illustration of decision processes for DLN models trained on the FreezerRegularTrain dataset: (a) DLN resulting from the Catch22 feature set, (b) DLN resulting from the TSFresh-20 feature set.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7 : The Best@k curves for the five strongest models on Catch22. DLN’s curve grows the fastest.
Figure 8 : The Best@k curves for the five strongest models on TSFresh-10.
Figure 9 : The Best@k curves for the five strongest models on TSFresh-20.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
0.758 ± 0.030
0.698 ± 0.018
0.687 ± 0.052
0.697 ± 0.028
0.655 ± 0.028
0.807 ± 0.033
0.441 ± 0.081
0.715 ± 0.028
0.728 ± 0.026
ChlorineConcentration
0.488 ± 0.010
0.394 ± 0.0
0.373 ± 8.5e-03
0.475 ± 0.031
0.411 ± 5.9e-03
0.435 ± 0.013
0.396 ± 5.0e-03
0.464 ± 0.011
0.440 ± 0.018
Computers
0.683 ± 0.024
0.684 ± 0.0
0.704 ± 0.015
0.723 ± 0.020
0.682 ± 0.029
0.711 ± 0.011
0.710 ± 0.017
0.682 ± 0.028
0.690 ± 0.024
CricketX
0.585 ± 0.011
0.451 ± 0.0
0.477 ± 0.017
0.561 ± 0.016
0.427 ± 0.034
0.550 ± 0.017
0.384 ± 0.017
0.507 ± 0.023
0.554 ± 0.017
CricketY
0.537 ± 7.2e-03
0.411 ± 0.0
0.472 ± 6.1e-03
0.534 ± 0.011
0.362 ± 0.013
0.515 ± 0.012
0.360 ± 0.019
0.476 ± 0.018
0.509 ± 0.026
CricketZ
0.591 ± 7.0e-03
0.443 ± 0.0
0.509 ± 6.4e-03
0.540 ± 0.016
0.417 ± 0.011
0.590 ± 0.015
0.344 ± 0.013
0.492 ± 0.031
0.530 ± 0.022
Appendix
Table 10 : Mean and standard deviation of balanced accuracy for Catch22 across 10 random seeds.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
1.15M
2.52M
1.81M
8.20M
915
115K
190K
8.13M
31.9K
ChlorineConcentration
7.85M
679K
518K
29.8M
1.65K
176K
222K
7.53M
38.6K
Computers
1.64M
445K
171K
10.7M
695
137K
205K
2.52M
26.5K
CricketX
2.69M
2.71M
2.07M
63.1M
1.23K
186K
252K
4.66M
85.2K
CricketY
2.69M
2.71M
2.07M
49.1M
1.34K
193K
239K
5.43M
67.8K
CricketZ
2.69M
2.71M
2.07M
52.5M
1.74K
170K
240K
6.81M
68.8K
Appendix
Table 11 : Geometric mean of inference OPs for Catch22 across 10 random seeds assuming FP16 for floating-point and INT16 for integer arithmetic.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
0.780
0.690
0.640
0.750
0.670
0.810
0.610
0.730
0.780
ChlorineConcentration
0.647
0.431
0.448
0.709
0.552
0.531
0.462
0.655
0.549
Computers
0.680
0.668
0.708
0.676
0.656
0.692
0.664
0.652
0.700
CricketX
0.559
0.417
0.511
0.577
0.416
0.545
0.358
0.522
0.522
CricketY
0.594
0.481
0.557
0.627
0.480
0.602
0.419
0.577
0.576
CricketZ
0.579
0.472
0.515
0.569
0.443
0.530
0.402
0.506
0.531
Appendix
Table 12 : Best-of-10 test balanced accuracy for TSFresh-10.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
0.739 ± 0.033
0.690 ± 0.0
0.618 ± 0.019
0.708 ± 0.034
0.597 ± 0.058
0.732 ± 0.058
0.525 ± 0.047
0.694 ± 0.027
0.723 ± 0.047
ChlorineConcentration
0.637 ± 0.021
0.431 ± 0.0
0.446 ± 2.3e-03
0.697 ± 0.011
0.482 ± 0.044
0.514 ± 0.013
0.451 ± 9.9e-03
0.618 ± 0.028
0.526 ± 0.014
Computers
0.649 ± 0.038
0.668 ± 0.0
0.693 ± 6.3e-03
0.658 ± 0.017
0.608 ± 0.035
0.673 ± 0.013
0.648 ± 7.9e-03
0.637 ± 0.014
0.654 ± 0.024
CricketX
0.547 ± 0.012
0.417 ± 0.0
0.507 ± 2.2e-03
0.563 ± 8.9e-03
0.385 ± 0.014
0.533 ± 8.0e-03
0.330 ± 0.017
0.500 ± 0.013
0.489 ± 0.016
CricketY
0.584 ± 0.011
0.481 ± 0.0
0.556 ± 4.4e-03
0.613 ± 0.016
0.458 ± 0.025
0.577 ± 0.014
0.395 ± 0.014
0.539 ± 0.027
0.546 ± 0.028
CricketZ
0.562 ± 0.013
0.472 ± 0.0
0.508 ± 7.1e-03
0.549 ± 0.019
0.435 ± 9.9e-03
0.509 ± 0.019
0.370 ± 0.019
0.483 ± 0.020
0.503 ± 0.018
Appendix
Table 13 : Mean and standard deviation of balanced accuracy for TSFresh-10 across 10 random seeds.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
1.14M
1.82M
1.58M
8.21M
1.13K
132K
219K
1.26M
24.2K
ChlorineConcentration
6.57M
544K
473K
43.2M
1.56K
170K
247K
2.26M
25.7K
Computers
1.79M
363K
158K
23.5M
714
95.9K
158K
792K
10.8K
CricketX
2.84M
2.18M
1.89M
50.4M
1.56K
170K
229K
1.60M
38.9K
CricketY
1.97M
2.18M
1.89M
48.1M
1.54K
152K
222K
1.46M
39.4K
CricketZ
1.97M
2.18M
1.89M
51.1M
1.56K
180K
256K
1.43M
33.6K
Appendix
Table 14 : Geometric mean of inference OPs for TSFresh-10 across 10 random seeds assuming FP16 for floating-point and INT16 for integer arithmetic.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
0.790
0.720
0.750
0.800
0.660
0.860
0.690
0.780
0.800
ChlorineConcentration
0.664
0.423
0.475
0.749
0.574
0.581
0.467
0.682
0.599
Computers
0.652
0.576
0.700
0.676
0.608
0.712
0.728
0.644
0.708
CricketX
0.654
0.542
0.594
0.671
0.463
0.647
0.465
0.626
0.594
CricketY
0.670
0.531
0.633
0.690
0.534
0.648
0.444
0.631
0.647
CricketZ
0.655
0.567
0.581
0.664
0.491
0.590
0.452
0.605
0.606
Appendix
Table 15 : Best-of-10 test balanced accuracy for TSFresh-20.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
0.763 ± 0.024
0.720 ± 0.0
0.734 ± 9.7e-03
0.778 ± 0.018
0.630 ± 0.029
0.837 ± 0.019
0.554 ± 0.063
0.763 ± 0.016
0.745 ± 0.038
ChlorineConcentration
0.662 ± 1.1e-03
0.423 ± 0.0
0.468 ± 6.9e-03
0.744 ± 9.7e-03
0.518 ± 0.043
0.536 ± 0.028
0.455 ± 7.4e-03
0.662 ± 0.014
0.570 ± 0.023
Computers
0.641 ± 7.6e-03
0.576 ± 0.0
0.692 ± 3.0e-03
0.663 ± 0.015
0.576 ± 0.026
0.683 ± 0.018
0.696 ± 0.017
0.621 ± 0.020
0.650 ± 0.024
CricketX
0.637 ± 0.020
0.542 ± 0.0
0.583 ± 6.7e-03
0.636 ± 0.022
0.447 ± 0.017
0.601 ± 0.029
0.417 ± 0.025
0.590 ± 0.019
0.574 ± 0.018
CricketY
0.665 ± 3.1e-03
0.531 ± 0.0
0.600 ± 0.025
0.674 ± 0.012
0.495 ± 0.029
0.622 ± 0.029
0.410 ± 0.024
0.621 ± 7.9e-03
0.583 ± 0.031
CricketZ
0.649 ± 6.2e-03
0.567 ± 0.0
0.549 ± 0.035
0.644 ± 0.019
0.472 ± 0.013
0.570 ± 0.010
0.412 ± 0.021
0.571 ± 0.023
0.574 ± 0.019
Appendix
Table 16 : Mean and standard deviation of balanced accuracy for TSFresh-20 across 10 random seeds.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
829K
2.19M
1.70M
7.10M
897
161K
227K
3.68M
43.1K
ChlorineConcentration
11.4M
656K
511K
17.6M
1.83K
116K
244K
6.03M
50.2K
Computers
1.57M
438K
170K
11.7M
897
121K
195K
2.91M
28.1K
CricketX
2.50M
2.63M
2.04M
37.7M
1.50K
171K
248K
4.79M
64.7K
CricketY
4.25M
2.63M
2.04M
60.9M
1.45K
182K
258K
4.30M
63.5K
CricketZ
2.50M
2.63M
2.04M
64.4M
1.56K
152K
274K
4.71M
68.9K
Appendix
Table 17 : Geometric mean of inference OPs for TSFresh-20 across 10 random seeds assuming FP16 for floating-point and INT16 for integer arithmetic.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
0.750
0.740
0.730
0.770
0.710
0.880
0.630
0.770
0.810
ChlorineConcentration
0.682
0.408
0.574
0.784
0.560
0.583
0.500
0.736
0.665
Computers
0.688
0.584
0.680
0.700
0.660
0.696
0.688
0.676
0.716
CricketX
0.642
0.555
0.624
0.657
0.478
0.624
0.458
0.632
0.631
CricketY
0.721
0.544
0.657
0.765
0.532
0.664
0.484
0.697
0.679
CricketZ
0.683
0.615
0.619
0.643
0.501
0.615
0.443
0.628
0.642
Appendix
Table 18 : Best-of-10 test balanced accuracy for TSFresh-40.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
0.733 ± 0.023
0.737 ± 6.7e-03
0.685 ± 0.037
0.742 ± 0.021
0.660 ± 0.033
0.848 ± 0.019
0.521 ± 0.048
0.726 ± 0.033
0.761 ± 0.020
ChlorineConcentration
0.682 ± 3.3e-05
0.408 ± 0.0
0.566 ± 0.010
0.776 ± 0.010
0.525 ± 0.031
0.556 ± 0.026
0.474 ± 0.015
0.705 ± 0.018
0.646 ± 0.014
Computers
0.672 ± 0.013
0.584 ± 0.0
0.667 ± 7.8e-03
0.674 ± 0.013
0.620 ± 0.032
0.679 ± 9.8e-03
0.672 ± 0.012
0.656 ± 0.014
0.659 ± 0.035
CricketX
0.636 ± 5.3e-03
0.555 ± 0.0
0.607 ± 0.017
0.644 ± 9.1e-03
0.452 ± 0.015
0.597 ± 0.017
0.408 ± 0.028
0.603 ± 0.014
0.602 ± 0.022
CricketY
0.705 ± 0.013
0.544 ± 0.0
0.641 ± 0.018
0.740 ± 0.025
0.504 ± 0.016
0.646 ± 0.012
0.446 ± 0.019
0.678 ± 0.018
0.644 ± 0.024
CricketZ
0.666 ± 0.010
0.615 ± 0.0
0.589 ± 0.028
0.613 ± 0.022
0.471 ± 0.029
0.596 ± 0.022
0.404 ± 0.020
0.590 ± 0.026
0.611 ± 0.020
Appendix
Table 19 : Mean and standard deviation of balanced accuracy for TSFresh-40 across 10 random seeds.
KNN
NB
LR
SVM
DT
RF
AB
MLP
DLN
ACSF1
1.10M
2.93M
1.95M
11.2M
1.10K
149K
198K
12.9M
83.5K
ChlorineConcentration
22.1M
880K
585K
20.8M
1.79K
176K
243K
15.5M
81.1K
Computers
2.81M
587K
195K
12.0M
1.19K
151K
180K
5.22M
52.1K
CricketX
4.43M
3.52M
2.34M
69.5M
1.65K
160K
255K
13.7M
120K
CricketY
4.43M
3.52M
2.34M
70.3M
1.39K
179K
260K
21.6M
140K
CricketZ
4.43M
3.52M
2.34M
61.4M
1.52K
148K
259K
13.1M
122K
Appendix
Table 20 : Geometric mean of inference OPs for TSFresh-40 across 10 random seeds assuming FP16 for floating-point and INT16 for integer arithmetic.
Neural networks (NNs) achieve outstanding performance in many domains; however, their decision processes are often opaque and their inference can be computationally expensive in resource-constrained environments. We recently proposed Differentiable Logic Networks (DLNs) to address these issues for tabular classification based on relaxing discrete logic into a differentiable form, thereby enabling gradient-based learning of networks built from binary logic operations. DLNs offer interpretable reasoning and substantially lower inference cost. We extend the DLN framework to supervised tabular regression. We first redesign the final output layer (the SumLayer) to support continuous targets. More critically, we find the original two-phase training procedure used for classification is suboptimal for regression, and thus develop a unified, single-stage optimization procedure. We also demonstrate that temperature annealing of the network's differentiable relaxations is decisive for achieving stable convergence and high accuracy. We evaluate the resulting model on 15 public regression benchmarks, comparing it with modern neural networks and classical regression baselines. Regression DLNs match or exceed baseline accuracy while preserving interpretability and fast inference. Our results show that DLNs are a viable, cost-effective alternative for regression tasks, especially where model transparency and computational efficiency are important.
Chang Yue, Niraj K. Jha
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
Differentiable logic gate networks (DLGNs) enable gradient-based training of highly efficient Boolean networks by relaxing discrete logic gates during training and discretizing them for inference. Standard approaches make this discretization decision locally, typically through argmax selection and confidence- or entropy-based convergence criteria. We show that local discretization can be task-suboptimal even for globally optimal relaxed solutions, with high gate confidence providing no general guarantee, and derive bounds relating task-aware gate selection to tractable interventions in the relaxed network. Motivated by these results, we study first-order downstream task information for progressive discretization and characterize when this local approximation is reliable. Experiments on convolutional DLGNs reveal a strong locality dependence: first-order scores become unreliable when directly optimized over nonlocal interventions, but accurately assess local argmax decisions for progressive freezing.
Traditional neural networks have an impressive classification performance, but what they learn cannot be inspected, verified or extracted. Neural Logic Networks on the other hand have an interpretable structure that enables them to learn a logical mechanism relating the inputs and outputs with AND and OR operations. We generalize these networks with NOT operations and biases that take into account unobserved data and develop a rigorous logical and probabilistic modeling in terms of concept combinations to motivate their use. We also propose a novel factorized IF-THEN rule structure for the model as well as a modified learning algorithm. Our method improves the state-of-the-art in Boolean networks discovery and is able to learn relevant, interpretable rules in tabular classification, notably on examples from the medical and industrial fields where interpretability has tangible value.
Vincent Perreault, Katsumi Inoue, Richard Labib +1
Department of Mathematics and Industrial Engineering Polytechnique Montréal · National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo