1

Atypicality for Heart Rate Variability Using a
Pattern-Tree Weighting Method

arXiv:1710.07319v1 [cs.LG] 12 Oct 2017

Elyas Sabeti, Member, IEEE and Anders Høst-Madsen, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—Heart rate variability (HRV) is a vital measure of
the autonomic nervous system functionality and a key indicator of
cardiovascular condition. This paper proposes a novel method,
called pattern tree which is an extension of Willem’s context
tree to real-valued data, to investigate HRV via an atypicality
framework. In a previous paper atypicality was developed as
method for mining and discovery in “Big Data,” which requires
a universal approach. Using the proposed pattern tree as a
universal source coder in this framework led to discovery of
arrhythmias and unknown patterns in HRV Holter Monitoring.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Information theory is generally a theory of typicality. For
example, compressing data using the Asymptotic Equipartion
Property (AEP) can be done by throwing away all sequences
that are not typical. Our perspective in this paper and prior
work [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] is that the value
of data lies not in these typical sequence, but in the atypical
sequences. Take art: the truly valuable paintings are those that
are rare and atypical. Take online collections of photos, such as
Flickr.com, the photos that of interest are those that are unique.
They are atypical. Of course, as opposed to ’interestingness,’
an atypicality criterion will find photos that are both uniquely
good and uniquely bad, there is no value judgment. A similar
example can be investing: extraordinary gains can be obtained
only by investing in atypical stocks, yet that can also lead to
total ruin. Atypicality [3] is defined by
Definition 1. A sequence is atypical if it can be described
(coded) with fewer bits in itself rather than using the (optimum) code for typical sequences.
In prior work, this framework has been used for data
discovery [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Our aim
with atypicality theory is to find ’unknown unknowns’ [10]. To
encode data in itself, we require a universal source coder. In
our discrete case atypicality papers we used Willems’ ContextTree Weighting (CTW) as an universal source coder which
requires data binarization.
With the aforementioned atypicality purpose, in this paper
we are extending CTW method to real-valued data by introducing the pattern-tree weighting (PTW) method with finite
maximum memory depth as binary-structured tree in which
data samples are partitioned by a binary pattern achieved by
comparing consecutive samples and the probability estimation
in each node is done by predictive estimators such as predictive
minimum description length (MDL).
The principal reason for introducing a new method such as
PTW is its strength in pattern mining of real-valued data which
has enormous applications in data science. For instance, the
patterns in Heart Rate Variability (HRV) are informative and

symptomatic of heart diseases; however their detailed recognition in Holter Monitoring is impractical for cardiologists,
due to huge amount of data at hand, i.e., “Big Data.” We
first discovered these HRV patterns in [1], but because of the
data binarization many patterns of real-valued HRV were not
captured. This issue is circumvented by PTW.
II. P REDICTIVE MDL
of parametric models P
=
 Consider the family
Pθ (xn ) : θ ∈ Θ ⊂ Rk . Rissanen [11] defined predictive
MDL (we call it ordinary predictive MDL) by
n−1
X
L(xn ) = −
log Pθ̂(xi ) (xi+1 |xi )
i=1

in which using the already observed data xi , the parameters of
the model θ̂(xi ) are estimated and they’re used to estimate the
op
probability of the next sample Pθ̂(x
(xi+1 |xi ). In our comi)
panion paper [9] we have shown that the ordinary predictive
MDL has initialization problems in the redundancy sense that
effects the total codelength, which we solve it by proposing
another predictive approach that is called the sufficient statistic
method, in which using sufficient statistics t, the distribution
of the parameters θ̂(t) are estimated and applied to calculate
ss
the probability of the next sample Pθ̂(t)
(xi+1 |xi ). To compare
our sufficient statistic method and the ordinary predictive
approach, assume the model is N(µ, σ 2 ), then

1
1
2
op
p
exp − 2 (xn+1 − µ
cn )
(1)
P (xn+1 |xn ) =
2Sn
2πSn2

 2  n2
r
Γ n+1
nSn
n
ss
2
P (xn+1 |xn ) =
π (n + 1) Γ n2 (n + 1) S 2  n+1
2
n+1
(2)
Pn
Pn
2
1
cn ) .
where µ
cn = n1 i=1 xi and Sn2 = n−1
i=1 (xi − µ
Note that for convenience, we drop the subscript θ̂(xi ) in
probabilities. Even though both ordinary predictive MDL and
sufficient statistic methods have distinct behavior in their initialization performance, they both achieve the same asymptotic
code length. In section III-B we’ll see how this predictor are
going to be used in each node of pattern-tree to calculate
coding distributions.
III. PATTERN TREE : A MODEL FOR HEART RATE
VARIABILITY

As it was mentioned earlier in the introduction, in [1] we
discovered some patterns in HRV that are signs of particular
heart arrhythmias. Due to quantization of the data, our discovery was limited, therefore we are motivated to extend the

2

result to the real-valued time series of HRV and this requires a
model for HRV signal. Even though there are many nonlinear
autoregressive processes and switching state-space models for
HRV, Costa et al [12] showed that all of those methods give a
rise to a multimodal distribution for HRV and they concluded
that the best is using Gaussian mixture model. Existence of
premature beats (heart beats that happen very early, before
heart contraction happens) in the HRV data that we have used
in [1] was indicative of the same fact at the rudimentary level.
Consider a time series of heart rate measurements xn =
{x1 , x2 , · · · , xn } and define zn as the state variable at time
n with K possibilities (K is the number of Gaussian distributions in the mixture model). Let πk = Pr {zn = k} for all
1 ≤ k ≤ K, then based on Costa’s model [12] we have
X
P (xn+1 |xn ) =
P (zn )P (xn+1 |xn , zn )
zn

=

K
X

πk Pθk (xn+1 |xn )

(3)

k=1

PK
K
where π = {πk }k=1 satisfies 0 ≤ πk ≤ 1 and k=1 πk =
1,
 and 2Pθk (xn+1 |xn ) is a Gaussian distribution with θ k =
µk , σk .
The model (3) and the biological reason behind mixturemodeling of HRV made us consider a more complex and more
exhaustive model for this process, a tree model. This can be
explained via a simple example. Assume we have a binary tree
with depth one, this tree partitions the samples in the root node
by comparing it with the previous sample and based on having
a rise or a drop, it will be assigned to one of the child nodes.
Now suppose this tree is used to divide the samples in a HRV
signal that contains premature beats. Note that the histogram of
this HRV signal will be a mixture of two Gaussian distributions
with separated means and different variances. Since the time
difference between the two consecutive normal heart beats
is (relatively) much larger than the time interval between a
normal heart beat and a premature one, the depth-one tree will
separate all the premature beats from normal ones (however
some normal beats can be classified as premature, since depthone tree is too simple). By letting this tree structure to be
deeper, more complex arrhythmias such as tachycardia, flutter
and fibrillation will be separated from normal beats; this could
also lead to new discoveries of heart abnormalities, which is
the real goal of our work. Since the same tree structure is
used in CTW and its application led to data discovery ([3],
[1]), here we want to extend the same concept to develop
the pattern tree weighting (PTW) for real-valued data. This
proposed method uses the binary data pattern as context and
apply predictive MDL for real-valued samples to compute the
coding distribution.
A. Pattern tree as an extension of the context tree
The context tree has been shown to be a powerful method
to compute an appropriate coding distribution [13], [14]. A
context of the binary source symbol yn is a suffix of the
semi-infinite sequence · · · , yn−2 , yn−1 that precedes it. The
context tree consists of nodes corresponding to each context
up to certain depth. A pattern tree of depth D has the same

structure of a context tree of the same depth, but since we
are interested to design it for real-valued data, the way it
splits the source sequence is different. Suppose at time n, the
last D samples of the real-valued source sequence (xi ∈ R)
are xn−D , · · · , xn−2 , xn−1 . After putting xn in the root node
η1 = λ, the way we assign xn to any of the root’s children
(η2 and η3 ) at depth one is based on comparing xn and xn−1 ,
for instance if xn−1 > xn we assign xn to node η2 . Next
the way we assign xn to η2 ’s children (η4 and η5 ) at depth
two is based on comparing xn−1 and xn−2 and we keep on
doing this until we reach the maximum depth D. As it can be
seen, at time n, connecting the nodes that are assigned by xn
illustrates a pattern that shows the fluctuation of the (D + 1)most recent source samples from xn−D to xn , and that’s the
reason we call it a pattern tree. Here is an example to show
how the source sequence is portioned by the pattern tree.
Example 2. Consider a tree with depth D = 3 and suppose
that the source generated the sequence [1.7 0.6 -2.6 -0.8 0.7
7.1 5.5 -2.7 6 1.4] while the past sequence was [... -0.9 0.1
-0.4]. Then the sequence is partitioned by the pattern tree, see
Fig. 1 (for now disregard the probabilities in the Fig. 1).
B. Coding for an unknown tree source
In this section we describe how to employ the predictive
MDL of section II to estimate the probability in each node.
Here we want to use the same concept of the weighted coding
distribution in the context tree, adapted to the real-value case.
Therefore to each node η we will assign a sequential predictive
distribution that only depends on the data samples observed by
this particular node. In fact, the weighted coding distribution
of the pattern tree will be exactly like the context tree, but with
this difference that instead of KT-estimator which is designed
for binary data, we use predictive MDL estimators (e.g., for
the case of Gaussian see (1) or (2) ).
From now on, we assume for a tree with depth D, the
initial context of past sequence x1−D , · · · , x0 is available.
At any time n for each node ηi suppose the vectors tηni =
{t < n : xt ∈ ηi } and xηni = {xt : t ∈ tηni } are the set of all
the time indexes of the already observed data samples by that
node and its corresponding data samples, respectively. Clearly
η
for every internal node we have tηni = tηn2i ∪ tn2i+1 , i.e., the set
of all the time indexes of the already observed data samples
by the parent node ηi is the union of the set of all the time
indexes of the already observed data samples by its children
η
(see Fig. 1), and similarly xηni = xηn2i ∪ xn2i+1 . Ergo the
weighted probability in each internal node is
1
Pη (xn+1 |xηni )
2 i
1
+ Pη2i (xn+1 |xηn2i )Pη2i+1 (xn+1 |xηn2i+1 )
2
where Pηi (xn+1 |xηni ) is the predictive distribution (e.g., (1)
and (2)) at node ηi . So in each node, the parameter of the
model is estimated based on the observed samples at that
particular node. One issue here can be in initialization, for
instance for a Gaussian source, at least each node needs
two samples to estimate both mean and variance. This can
be resolved by estimating the initial predictive distribution
Pω,ηi (xn+1 |xηni ) =

3

parameters based on the first D samples of data in the context.
Finally the weighted probability in each internal node will be
(see (4) at the top of the next page).
As an example for predictive distribution, if the source
sequence is generated according to N (µ, σ 2 ) where both µ
and σ 2 are unknown, then using ordinary predictive MDL of
(1) we have


1
1
2
exp − 2 (xn+1 − µ
cn )
(5)
Pηi (xn+1 |xηni ) = p
2Sn
2πSn2
P
1
η
where µ
cn
=
and Sn2
=
η
xi ∈xni xi
|xni |
P
2
1
η
cn ) .
The
following
example
η
xi ∈xni (xi − µ
|xni |−1
calculates the weighted probability of the source sequence of
Example 2 using Gaussian MDL predictor (2):
Example 3. Back to the Example 2, the weighted probabilities
Pω using our sufficient-statistic-based predictor (2) as the
estimator for Gaussian distribution are depicted in the pattern
tree in Fig. 1.

3,8,11
3,8,11
p !=2.7x10 -5

2,3,7,8,10,11

p !=2.7x10 -5
2,7,10
p !=4.1x10

p !=1.7x10 -9
-5

1,2,3,4,5,
6,7,8,9,10,11
p !=3.8x10 -17
1,4,5,6,9

p !=6.3x10 -9

1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8 9 10 11
... -0.9 0.1 -0.4 1.7 0.6 -2.6 -0.8 0.7 7.1 5.5 -2.7 6 1.4 1
Past
Source Sequence

Figure 2. Updated path of the weighted pattern tree of the source sequence
in Example 2 followed by a 1.

terms of coding, Definition 1 can be stated in the following
form
C(x|P) − C(x) > 0

3,8
3,8
p !=9.6x10 -4
2,10
p !=1x10-2
7
p !=3.4x10 -3
4,9
p !=2.6x10 -4
1
p !=3.2x10 -2
5
p !=1.3x10 -1
6
p !=2x10-3

p !=9.6x10 -4

2,3,7,8,10

2,7,10
p !=4.1x10

p !=3.8x10 -8
-5

1,2,3,4,5,
6,7,8,9,10
p !=3.8x10 -16

1,4,9
p !=9.8x10 -6
5,6

1,4,5,6,9

p !=6.3x10 -9

p !=3.7x10 -4

1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8 9 10
... -0.9 0.1 -0.4 1.7 0.6 -2.6 -0.8 0.7 7.1 5.5 -2.7 6 1.4
Past
Source Sequence

Figure 1. The source sequence of Example 2 is split up by PTW. In Example
3 the weighted probabilities are then calculated.

C. Updating the pattern tree and complexity
Suppose a pattern tree of depth D already seen the source
sequence x1 , · · · , xn−1 , xn , now we want to see how complex
the pattern tree evolves when the next sample xn+1 is going
to be processed. This is done by updating all the nodes in only
one path of length D from the root to a leaf node and this
path is determined by the procedure explained in section III-A.
Then the updating steps in all the D + 1 nodes in the evolving
path are: (i) updating the parameter estimation, (ii) updating
predictive probabilities Pηi (xn+1 |xηni ) and (iii) updating the
weighted probabilities Pω,ηi (xn+1 |xηni ). The following example which is the continuation of the series of examples shows
how the source sequence in Example 3 is updated for new
source sample.
Example 4. Suppose that the source has already generated the
sequence of Example 2. This resulted the weighted pattern tree
in Note
Fig. 1.
that by assuming a parametric model (here, a Gaussian
model), there would be no more need to store all the data
samples in each node; instead, only parameters should be
updated and stored in the nodes.
IV. ATYPICALITY USING PTW

Suppose P = Pθ (xn ) : θ ∈ Θ ⊂ Rk is a family of
parametric model class that can be assigned to the data. In

Here C(x|P) is the code length of x encoded with the
optimum coder according to the typical law (known parameters
θ), and C(x) is x encoded ’in itself.’ As argued in [3], we
need to put a ’header’ in atypical sequences to inform the
encoder that an atypical encoder is used. We can therefore
write C(x) = τ + C̃(x), where τ is the number of bits for the
’header,’ and C̃(x) is the number of bits used for encoding the
data itself. For encoding the data in itself an obvious solution
is to use a universal source coder. We have therefore chosen
to use the PTW algorithm.
A. Typical Encoding and Training
In Definition 1 we have assumed that parameters θ of the
typical model of data is exactly known, however, in many
cases the parameters are not known exactly. Let us assume we
are given a single long sequence t for training – rather than
the parameters θ in model P – and based on this we need
to encode a sequence x. To understand what this means, we
have to realize that when x is encoded according to C(x|P)
with a known θ, the coding probabilities are fixed; they are
not affected by x. This is an important part of Definition 1
that reacts to ’outliers,’ data that does not fit the typical model.
But the issue with universal source coders is that they often
easily adapts to new types of data, a desirable property of a
good universal source coder, but problematic in light of the
above discussion. We therefore need to ’freeze’ the source
coder, for example by not updating the dictionary. However,
because the training data is likely incomplete as discussed
above, the freezing should not be too hard. This issue is
precisely described in [3] and due to page limitation we don’t
go over it here, but with a simulation we show why freezing
the encoder is essential in implementing atypicality: The PTW
algorithm trained with a Gaussian process with σ 2 = 4 and
then tested with another Gaussian source with same mean and
different variance σ 2 = 1. It can be seen in Fig. 3 that the
non-frozen algorithm learn the statistic and behavior of the
new source; however, the codelength using frozen algorithm
keeps increasing and that’s a property we are interested in.

4

Pω,ηi (xn+1 |xηni ) =


η2i+1
1
1
ηi
η2i

 2 Pηi (xn+1 |xn ) + 2 Pη2i (xn+1 |xn )Pη2i+1 (xn+1 |xn )

ηi : internal node




ηi : leaf node

algorithm outperformed other methods. Here we want to
compare our algorithm with CDM on a simulated data. In
this experiment the training sequence is a Gaussian process
with zero mean and σ 2 = 4, and the test sequence have the
same statistics as the training data but with two episodes of
anomalies embedded in it: a sinusoidal segment (red part in
Fig. 4) and a segment of Gaussian process with zero mean
and σ 2 = 1 (green part in Fig. 4). As can be verified
from the figure, our PTW-based atypicality found both of
the anomalies in the data; however, CDM only detected the
sinusoidal pattern.

The Effect of Freezing: Non-Frozen Typical Coder
Will Learn The Atypical Sequences

10000

Non-Frozen Typical Code Length
Frozen Typical Code Length
Atypical Code Length

9000

(4)

Pηi (xn+1 |xηni )

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000

Test Data

1000
20

A)

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

B)

C)

10

500

Figure 3. The importance of freezing source coding when testing for
atypicality.

0
-10
-20

B. Atypical subsequences

50

Let X (n, l) = (xn , xn+1 , . . . , xn+l−1 ) be a subsequence
of {xn , n = 0, . . . , ∞} that we want to test for atypicality.
As mentioned earlier, the start of a sequence needs to be
encoded as well as the length. Additionally the code length
is minimized over the maximum depth D of the context tree.
The atypical code length is then given by
∗

∗

LA (X (n, l)) = min (− log Pω,λ (D) + log D) + log l
D

except for the τ . Here Pω,λ (D) denotes the probability at
the root of the pattern tree of depth D. For typical coding
we use the algorithm in Section IV-A when the parameters
are not known; let L(n) be the codelength for the sequence
x0 , . . . , xn . Then we can put LT (X (n, l)) = L(n + l − 1) −
L(n). We need to test every subsequence of every length, that
is, we need to test subsequences X (n, l) for every value of
n and l. For atypical coding this means that a new PTW
algorithm needs to be started at every sample time. So, if the
maximum sequence length is L, L separate PTW trees need
to maintained at any time. These are completely independent,
so they can be run on parallel processors. The result is that
for every bit of the data we calculate
∆L(n) = min {LA (X (n, l)) − LT (X (n, l))}
l

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Atypicality

CDM

Figure 4. A comparison of two different methods. For our proposed method,
the 4L of equation (6) has been plotted. A) Gaussian process with zero mean
and σ 2 = 4, exactly the same as training (typical) data, B) A sinusoidal
segment C) A segment of Gaussian process with zero mean and σ 2 = 1 .

B. Detection of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (PAF)
Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (PAF) is an irregular, often
rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow, which
may lead to severe consequences. PhysioNet [16] has provided
a database for this arrhythmia [17]. Part of this database
includes 30-minute ECG records of different subjects (who
have PAF) during a period that is distant from any episode of
PAF. Each 30-minute record is then followed by two 5-minute
record of the same subject, one of which contains an episode
of PAF, and the other one has no such an episode. Fig. 5 shows
HRV signal for a subject in the database.
30 minutes HRV segment: Distant from any episode of PAF

(6)

1.5
1

and we can state the atypicality criterion as ∆L(n) < −τ .
V. A NOMALY D ETECTION

In [15] authors came up with the Compression-based Dissimilarity Measure (CDM) that uses the dissimilarity measure
for anomaly detection. They showed by that their proposed

0
200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

5 minutes HRV segment: Distant from any episode of PAF

Time (sec)

In [3] we have used CTW for anomaly detection in binary
data and we got unique results. In order to verify the performance of our algorithm for real-valued data, here we want
to use PTW as encoder in atypicality framework for same
purpose.
A. Comparison with an alternative method

0.5

1.5
1
0.5
0
50

100

150

200

250

300

350

5 minutes HRV segment: Contains episode of PAF
1.5
1
0.5
0
50

100

150

200

250

Samples

Figure 5. HRV signal of a PAF subject in the database

300

350

5

As we mentioned earlier, the ultimate goal of atypicality is
to find “unknown unknowns” in Big Data. One example can be
the data that achieved by Holter Monitoring, i.e., a continuous
tape recording of a patient’s ECG for 24 hours. For such a
data we used the MIT-BIH Normal Sinus Rhythm Database
(nsrdb) which is provided by PhysioNet [16]. Even though the
subjects included in this database were found to have had no
significant arrhythmias, there exist many arrhythmic beats and
patterns to look for. We want to apply our algorithm to find
interesting parts of the data in the dataset.
Since the data is assumed to be “Normal Sinus Rhythm,”
we trained and froze our typical PTW with Gaussian process
of the same mean and variance of the data. Using the process
of the section IV-B, we managed to find interesting results
on the dataset. As an example, we provide Fig. 6. An can
be seen in the figure, for that particular data we came up
with three major atypical subsequences: the first one is denotes
by “S,” second one is marked with “V” and the last one as
“pattern.” After looking up in the annotation file which is
provided for the HRV, the “S” group corresponds to onset
of some supraventricular beats and the “V” groups was the
result of ventricular contraction; however, there were no label
for the segment that we call “pattern” in the HRV annotations.
Looking closer in the data shows existence of some repetitive
patterns that was not even seen by the cardiologist who
annotated the HRV data. Taking a deeper look into ECG (not
HRV) annotation shows that those patterns are happening at
the same time that there are either some isolated QRS-like
artifact or signal quality change [16]. This shows our algorithm
was able to find something that was missed by the eye of
the expert who was only looking into the HRV data without
considering the ECG signals; nevertheless, it could be the sign
of some heart malfunction after the recording was over.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Høst-Madsen, E. Sabeti, and C. Walton, “Information theory for
atypical sequences,” in IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW’13),
Seville, Spain, 2013.
[2] A. Host-Madsen and E. Sabeti, “Atypical information theory for realvalued data,” in 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information
Theory (ISIT). IEEE, 2015, pp. 666–670.
[3] A. Høst-Madsen, E. Sabeti, and C. Walton, “Data discovery and anomaly
detection using atypicality: Theory,” IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, submitted 2016, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.03189.
[4] A. Host-Madsen, E. Sabeti, C. Walton, and S. J. Lim-Higbie, “Universal
data discovery using atypicality,” in 3rd International Workshop on
Pattern Mining and Application of Big Data (BigPMA - Big Data 2016),
2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2016.

1.5
HRV: An episode of 24 hours
Atypicality: "L(n) (bits)

Time (sec)

In our experiment, for each subject we train the PTW with
HRV of 30-minute records and freeze it, then it was used as
encoder for its two 5-minute segments. Our goal was to detect
the 5-minute record with PAF episode, since we believed using
the PTW trained on 30-minute records, smaller codelength is
needed to encode the 5-minute record without PAF episode.
After applying the same procedure on all the 25 subjects, we
were able to detect all the 5-minute record containing PAF
episode correctly, with 100 accuracy (consequently due to data
structures, zero false alarm), in fact we have improved the
best results of other researches on the same database about 10
percent [18], [19]. Again, as we discussed in section IV-A it
verifies the importance of freezing in our notion of atypicality.
C. Detection of anomaly in Holter Monitoring

1

0.5
S

Patterns

V

0

-0.5

-1
1

2

3

4

5

Samples

6

7

8

9

10
#10 4

Figure 6. Atypicality using PTW for Holter Monitoring HRV: “S” stands for
supraventricular arrhythmia and “V” stands for ventricular contraction
[5] E. Sabeti and A. Host-Madsen, “Atypicality for vector gaussian models,”
in 2015 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing
(GlobalSIP). IEEE, 2015, pp. 328–332.
[6] ——, “Atypicality for the class of exponential family,” in 2016 54rd Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing
(Allerton). IEEE, 2016.
[7] ——, “How interesting images are: An atypicality approach for social
networks,” in Big Data (Big Data), 2016 IEEE International Conference
on. IEEE, 2016.
[8] E. Sabeti and A. Høst-Madsen, “Data discovery and anomaly
detection using atypicality: Signal processing methods,” IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, submitted 2017, available at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.03191.
[9] E. Sabeti and A. Host-Madsen, “Enhanced mdl with application to
atypicality,” in 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Information
Theory (ISIT). IEEE, 2017.
[10] D. Rumsfeld, Known and Unknown: A Memoir. Penguin, 2011.
[11] J. Rissanen, “Stochastic complexity and modeling,” The Annals of
Statistics, no. 3, pp. 1080–1100, Sep. 1986.
[12] F. M. Costa T, Boccignone G, “Gaussian mixture model of heart rate
variability,” PLoS ONE, no. 5, 2012.
[13] F. M. J. Willems, Y. Shtarkov, and T. Tjalkens, “The context-tree weighting method: basic properties,” Information Theory, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 653–664, 1995.
[14] F. Willems, Y. Shtarkov, and T. Tjalkens, “Reflections on "the context
tree weighting method: Basic properties",” Newsletter of the IEEE
Information Theory Society, vol. 47, no. 1, 1997.
[15] E. Keogh, S. Lonardi, and C. A. Ratanamahatana, “Towards parameterfree data mining,” in Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM,
2004, pp. 206–215.
[16] A. L. Goldberger, L. A. N. Amaral, L. Glass, J. M. Hausdorff,
P. C. Ivanov, R. G. Mark, J. E. Mietus, G. B. Moody, C.-K.
Peng, and H. E. Stanley, “Physiobank, physiotoolkit, and physionet,”
Circulation, vol. 101, no. 23, pp. e215–e220, 2000. [Online]. Available:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/101/23/e215
[17] G. Moody, A. Goldberger, S. McClennen, and S. Swiryn, “Predicting
the onset of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: The computers in cardiology
challenge 2001,” in Computers in Cardiology 2001. IEEE, 2001, pp.
113–116.
[18] E. Sabeti, M. B. Shamsollahi, and F. Afdideh, “Prediction of paroxysmal
atrial fibrillation using empirical mode decomposition and rr intervals,”
in Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (IECBES), 2012 IEEE EMBS
Conference on. IEEE, 2012, pp. 750–754.
[19] T. Thong, J. McNames, M. Aboy, and B. Goldstein, “Prediction of
paroxysmal atrial fibrillation by analysis of atrial premature complexes,”
IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 561–
569, 2004.

