Many real-world time series data exhibit structural properties at multiple scales, from short, recurring units to complex sequences composed of these units. Unsupervised discovery of both these components and structure enables the design of intelligent systems that help interpret temporal data, thereby limiting the amount of costly human annotations required. Existing modeling approaches typically overlook the hierarchical structure inherent to many time series, treating recurring patterns at different temporal scales as independent structures. Moreover, most assume access to the complete data sequence and treat discovery as a static process, limiting their ability to evolve as new observations arrive. We introduce Rondo, an unsupervised approach for modeling recurring hierarchical structure in continuous temporal streams. By explicitly constructing vocabularies of reusable units and their recurring compositions, Rondo captures structure shared across complex temporal patterns while refining and expanding its discoveries as the stream evolves. Evaluations on temporal sequences spanning diverse domains and data modalities show that Rondo outperforms existing unsupervised recurrence-discovery baselines, with particularly pronounced advantages in limited-data and continual-stream settings. These capabilities provide a stronger foundation for recurring-pattern discovery, scalable behavior understanding, and adaptive intelligent systems operating on long, unlabeled temporal streams.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: RONDO discovers recurring temporal structure hierarchically. (a) Temporal streams exhibit recurring local units that compose into longer-scale motifs. (b) Current methods can fragment such structure and cause over-segmentation, while Rondo preserves the unit-motif hierarchy. (c) Rondo learns reusable units and composes recurring unit sequences into motifs.
Figure 2: Overview of Rondo . (a) A continuous temporal stream is divided into sliding windows. (b) UnitAlign encodes and adapts each window, clusters recurring local structure into a reusable unit vocabulary, and smooths unit assignments. (c) MotifFormer models unit sequences across temporal scales to discover higher-level motifs, followed by a soft coverage filter. (d) During continual operation, unmatched windows and unit subsequences are stored in novelty buffers and, once sufficient evidence is available, used to refine existing entries or introduce new units and motifs.
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
MoCap
Drive&Act
Time2State
88.68
91.49
84.48
83.80
1.70
Time2State
54.23
29.55
7.00
12.97
11.31
E2USD
84.97
87.45
77.95
76.48
1.97
E2USD
47.60
18.90
5.66
11.80
14.47
TICC
86.61
84.52
79.39
83.18
2.19
TICC
49.47
23.71
6.61
13.01
9.14
AutoPlait
90.27
90.28
91.18
92.05
0.97
AutoPlait
39.42
8.08
0.26
4.32
0.04
CompILE
66.45
61.05
52.19
63.14
1.97
CompILE
46.17
17.20
9.04
32.69
4.13
Table 1: Recurring structure discovery results (%). Stochastic methods report mean performance over five random seeds, with standard deviations provided in Appendix F ; deterministic or officially fixed-seed methods are evaluated once. CompILE is evaluated once due to its computational cost. Higher is better for MoF, Recall, F1@50, and Edit. For SegRatio, values closer to 1 are better, so ranked with ∣logSegRatio∣ and lower is better. Best in bold , second-best underlined.
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
H@40
H@60
H@80
H@100
Mf
OPPORTUNITY
Time2State@20
44.70
36.20
7.00
36.00
5.58
0.00
0.00
32.00
20.50
24.00
DBSTREAM@20
47.10
34.00
8.00
26.20
6.02
30.50
36.60
44.60
39.00
25.80
DenStream@20
59.90
45.90
15.10
23.56
8.75
11.40
37.60
57.80
58.30
12.40
Rondo @20
58.10
42.90
21.10
44.70
4.03
23.40
38.70
65.40
63.50
14.60
PAMAP2
Table 2: Continual discovery on progressively revealed streams. H@40–100 denotes H-score after observing 40–100% of the stream.
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
LARa
Drive&Act
Time2State
50.62
28.56
16.67
40.72
1.59
Time2State
44.80
17.53
4.99
14.07
14.37
E2USD
45.59
21.20
12.06
41.64
1.78
E2USD
43.75
14.94
6.00
13.34
14.68
Rondo
62.20
43.89
29.72
45.32
1.24
Rondo
54.27
38.11
8.97
23.42
7.98
Rondo -fit
63.48
44.05
31.35
47.83
1.25
Rondo -fit
58.66
46.50
9.84
18.94
9.28
Table 3: Cross-record transfer results on LARa and Drive&Act. Rondo -fit updates only MotifFormer on the target record.
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
OPPORTUNITY
LARa
w/o MF
78.70
58.20
28.90
49.48
1.13
w/o MF
76.60
48.80
36.30
47.66
1.40
w/o UA
76.90
65.40
35.00
47.11
0.86
w/o UA
77.60
45.60
37.30
44.20
1.26
Rondo
79.96
59.19
30.59
48.06
1.23
Rondo
78.44
53.01
38.50
47.34
1.31
PAMAP2
Drive&Act
w/o MF
80.30
92.60
11.12
12.94
17.99
w/o MF
55.90
35.99
7.66
13.12
11.69
Table 4: Ablation of Rondo . w/o UA removes UnitAlign while retaining MotifFormer, and w/o MF removes MotifFormer while retaining unit-level discovery.
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
OPPORTUNITY
LARa
TS2Vec
79.96
59.19
30.59
48.06
1.23
TS2Vec
78.44
53.01
38.50
47.34
1.31
Time-MAE
78.50
65.30
28.60
46.70
1.36
Time-MAE
79.10
53.70
46.10
57.30
2.14
MantisV2
72.30
61.00
31.30
63.80
2.40
MantisV2
74.60
51.50
39.90
58.90
2.23
PAMAP2
Drive&Act
TS2Vec
84.12
94.25
22.91
20.82
15.37
TS2Vec
68.36
62.30
14.29
22.22
8.04
Table 5: Representation sensitivity of Rondo across four datasets. Results compare TS2Vec, Time-MAE, and MantisV2 under the same discovery pipeline, showing that performance remains competitive across different self-supervised and pretrained temporal representations.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Segmentation of one recording from three representative datasets, against the ground truth (bottom). Predicted states are coloured by the class they map to; a single-colour row means every predicted state mapped to the same class.
Figure 4: Illustration of the evaluation-only many-to-one mapping. Discovered clusters are matched to ground-truth labels by their duration-weighted overlap on a common temporal axis, allowing multiple clusters to map to the same semantic label.
Dataset
Source
Subj.
Rec.
Frames
Rate (Hz)
Raw ch.
Classes
MoCap
CMU MoCap, subject 86
1
9
65,611
—
4
9
PAMAP2
PAMAP2 Protocol
8
8
2,864,056
100
40
13
ActRecTut
ActRecTut
2
4
200,693
42
24
17
Drive&Act
Drive&Act, OpenPose 3D
15
29
1,222,442
30
104
13
OPPORTUNITY
OPPORTUNITY UCI
4
24
869,387
30.3
242
5
LARa
LARa v3, MbientLab IMU
8
193
2,224,452
100
30
8
Appendix
Table 6: Summary of the six evaluation datasets. Rec. denotes the number of independent recordings over which temporal segmentation is evaluated. Raw ch. denotes the dimensionality of the original input signals before method-specific preprocessing; the actual input dimensionality used by each method is reported in Table 7 .
Dataset
Raw
Time2State, E2USD
TICC, AutoPlait
CLaP, CompILE
Window / step
MoCap
4
4 (native)
4 (native)
4 (native)
256 / 50
PAMAP2
40
9 (selection)
9 (selection)
9 (selection)
200 / 100
ActRecTut
24
24 (native)
10 (PCA)
8 (PCA)
90 / 30
Drive&Act
104
104 (native)
16 (PCA)
16 (PCA)
90 / 30
OPPORTUNITY
242
54 (PCA)
54 (PCA)
54 (PCA)
30 / 15
LARa
30
30 (native)
16 (PCA)
16 (PCA)
200 / 50
Appendix
Table 7: Preprocessing settings for each dataset. Raw is the original channel count; the next three columns give the input channels each method receives (native, the published channel selection, or the number of PCA components). The window/step applies to the sliding-window methods.
Component
Setting
Value
UnitAlign
bottleneck / output dimension
256 / 128
initialization epochs
20
λgeom,λVIC
0.2 / 0.05
refinement epochs / max rounds
3 / 20
λsup,λvar,λcov,λgeom
1.0 / 1.0 / 0.04 / 0.25
SupCon temperature
0.1
Appendix
Table 8: Key hyperparameters used in Rondo . Unless otherwise stated, all settings are fixed across datasets.
Method
Discovery mechanism
AutoPlait
MDL-based joint segmentation and regime discovery
TICC
Toeplitz inverse-covariance clustering with temporal smoothness
Time2State
causal-CNN representation followed by a DPGMM
E2USD
frequency-aware representation followed by a DPGMM
CLaP
self-supervised classification and segment merging
CompILE
variational learning of segment boundaries and latent codes
Appendix
Table 9: Baseline methods and their main discovery mechanisms.
Method
Setting
Value
AutoPlait
parameter-free
–
TICC
number of states
8
window size
1
switch penalty
600
sparsity
0.11
max iterations
100
Appendix
Table 10: Hyperparameters used for the baseline methods. Values follow the released implementations or their reference experiments unless noted otherwise.
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
Method
MoF
Recall
F1@50
Edit
SegRatio
MoCap
Drive&Act
Time2State
88.68 ± 2.07
91.49 ± 2.36
84.48 ± 2.29
83.80 ± 1.17
1.70 ± 0.13
Time2State
54.23 ± 0.39
29.55 ± 1.79
7.00 ± 0.39
12.97 ± 0.47
11.31 ± 0.13
E2USD
84.97 ± 2.81
87.45 ± 6.11
77.95 ± 5.77
76.48 ± 6.78
1.97 ± 0.28
E2USD
47.60 ± 0.48
18.90 ± 0.81
5.66 ± 0.29
11.80 ± 0.19
14.47 ± 0.42
TICC
86.61 ± 0.00
84.52 ± 0.00
79.39 ± 0.00
83.18 ± 0.00
2.19 ± 0.00
TICC
49.47 ± 0.28
23.71 ± 1.39
6.61 ± 0.65
13.01 ± 0.70
9.14 ± 0.09
AutoPlait
90.27
90.28
91.18
92.05
0.97
AutoPlait
39.42
8.08
0.26
4.32
0.04
CompILE
66.45
61.05
52.19
63.14
1.97
CompILE
46.17
17.20
9.04
32.69
4.13
Appendix
Table 11: Complete results (%), mean ± standard deviation over five seeds. For SegRatio, values closer to 1 are better.
Developing agents capable of exploring, planning and learning in complex open-ended environments is a grand challenge in artificial intelligence (AI). Hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) offers a promising solution to this challenge by discovering and exploiting the temporal structure within a stream of experience. The strong appeal of the HRL framework has led to a rich and diverse body of literature attempting to discover a useful structure. However, it is still not clear how one might define what constitutes good structure in the first place, or the kind of problems in which identifying it may be helpful. This work aims to identify the benefits of HRL from the perspective of the fundamental challenges in decision-making, as well as highlight its impact on the performance trade-offs of AI agents. Through these benefits, we then cover the families of methods that discover temporal structure in HRL, ranging from learning directly from online experience to offline datasets, to leveraging large language models (LLMs). Finally, we highlight the challenges of temporal structure discovery and the domains that are particularly well-suited for such endeavours.
Martin Klissarov, Akhil Bagaria, Ziyan Luo +3
Mila, McGill University · Amazon · Amii, University of Alberta Canada CIFAR AI Chair
Long-term time series forecasting requires temporal dependency modeling that remains stable and generalizable under temporal distribution shifts. However, real-world time series are often noisy and non-stationary, making deep learning models prone to fitting incidental temporal interactions in the training data. A key question is whether there exist temporal relationship structures that recur across different temporal positions and variables. We analyze temporal relationship matrices on commonly used time series datasets and find that samples from different temporal positions and different variables exhibit shared dominant temporal relationship structures. This indicates that temporal relationship structures contain patterns that recur stably across samples and variables. To learn such shared structures, we propose Temporal Structure Network (TStruct), a simple yet effective network for directly learning shared and generalizable temporal dependencies. Specifically, TStruct directly parameterizes a set of shared temporal dependency matrices and generates normalized combination weights using dynamic sample information and static variable priors. These weights represent a soft allocation of each sample-variable pair over shared temporal dependency structures, enabling the model to generate adaptive temporal dependency matrices under shared structural constraints, rather than fitting incidental interactions in a fully unconstrained manner. Notably, this simple structure-aware design consistently outperforms several strong baselines across all datasets, achieving superior accuracy while maintaining high computational efficiency.
Yangze Li, Zhengyang Zhou, Qihe Huang +3
University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, China · Suzhou Institute for Advanced Research, USTC, Suzhou, China
Learning long-range non-stationary temporal patterns remains a core challenge for modern sequence models, particularly in strict streaming settings. In these settings, data arrive sequentially and must be processed in a single pass without simultaneously revisiting past observations. Standard architectures, including recurrent neural networks and transformers, are constrained by either truncated backpropagation through time horizon or explicit input window length for long range credit assignment. To address these limitations, we propose SHARP (Sleep-based Hierarchical Accelerated Replay), a framework that decomposes temporal learning into two complementary components: a memory module that accumulates a structured history of past inputs, and a pattern-recognition module that operates over this memory. This separation enables resource- and compute-efficient adaptation to non-stationary dynamics by eliminating the need for backpropagation through time across many steps for long-range credit assignment. Inspired by the accelerated replay observed in rodents during slow-wave sleep, SHARP incorporates offline (sleep) phases in which temporally structured memory traces are replayed in an accelerated form and integrated into higher-level memory representations, improving long-range context retention. Through controlled simulations and ablation studies, we characterize the key properties of the proposed framework. In benchmark datasets such as text8 and PG-19, we demonstrate that SHARP improves over recurrent baselines by retaining next-token predictive performance on previously seen data while continuing to learn from the current stream and generalizing to future unseen data. These gains are enabled by its hierarchical structure, which yields an exponentially increasing effective temporal context with only linear-time computational cost.
Jayanta Dey, Shikhar Srivastava, Itamar Lerner +2
University of Texas at San Antonio, USA · University of Rochester, USA