Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Knowledge-enhanced Transformer for Multivariate Long Sequence Time-series Forecasting

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that injecting learnable knowledge-graph embeddings, derived from a hand-built graph of variable relationships, into transformer baselines improves multivariate long-sequence forecasting accuracy, with the largest…

desk verdict A simple hand-built graph embedding injection idea with clean ablations, but the paper's own Table III contradicts the headline claim and the missing appendix blocks verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11046 v1 pith:L535ABSK submitted 2024-11-17 cs.LG cs.AI

Shubham Tanaji Kakde , Rony Mitra , Jasashwi Mandal , Manoj Kumar Tiwari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords multivariatetime-seriesforecastinglongsequenceknowledgegraphembeddingstransformerattentionmechanismspatio-temporaldependenciesETTdatasetWeather
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that transformer forecasters for multivariate long-horizon time series overlook the structural relationships between variables, and that a small, learnable knowledge-graph embedding can supply that missing structure. The authors build a binary graph whose edges encode domain knowledge—physical laws for weather variables and operational principles for electric transformer temperature—and turn it into a dynamic embedding that is added to the input of standard transformer architectures. On Weather and ETT benchmarks, the augmented models mostly beat their unaugmented baselines, with the largest reported gains on Weather (for Informer, an average 54.5% MSE reduction) and on ETTm1 (for Autoformer, 21.9%). The paper also reports that gains shrink or reverse on datasets where the graph is simple, such as ETTm2 and ETTh1.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dynamic and learnable knowledge-graph embedding $W_{\text{KGE}}$, built by multiplying a hand-built binary adjacency matrix $A \in \{0,1\}^{|V|\times|V|}$ by a learnable weight matrix $W_l$ and a projection matrix $W_p$, then adding the result to the input embeddings together with positional, value, and temporal embeddings before the multi-head attention blocks. The graph itself supplies the initial relational basis, while backpropagation updates $W_l$ and $W_p$, making the static graph dynamic and dataset-adaptive; this is what carries the claimed transfer of inter-variable structural knowledge into the transformer.

What would settle it

Permute the rows and columns of the adjacency matrix $A$ before training so the graph no longer matches the variables, while keeping the degree distribution unchanged; if forecast MSE does not worsen materially on the Weather dataset, then the specific relational content of the graph is not what drives the reported gains, and the improvement would instead come from added parameters or from any fixed auxiliary input.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding a learnable knowledge-graph embedding to the input of a transformer gives the attention mechanism access to inter-variable structure it otherwise ignores, improving multivariate long-sequence forecasting accuracy without requiring graph neural networks or graph convolution layers. The knowledge-graph embedding is constructed from a hand-built binary adjacency matrix that encodes relationships among variables, then made dynamic by learnable weight matrices updated through backpropagation during training. The authors assert that their method consistently surpasses the original baselines across four transformer architectures—Transformer, Informer, Autoformer, and PatchTST—and that the improvements are most pronounced for longer forecast horizons and for datasets with well-established variable relationships.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-built binary graph of variable relationships—derived from physical laws for weather and operational principles for ETT—actually captures the inter-variable structure that matters for forecasting; if those edges are wrong or irrelevant, the learnable embeddings add noise instead of signal, and the paper itself observes degraded results on ETTm2 and ETTh1 where the graph may be too simple.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, transformer forecasters can be improved with a small plug-in embedding instead of redesigned graph neural network layers.
  • The reported gains grow with forecast horizon, suggesting the relational embedding helps most where long-range prediction makes temporal patterns harder to isolate.
  • The method transfers across four different transformer variants, so it is presented as architecture-agnostic rather than tied to one attention mechanism.
  • The approach is only beneficial where variable relationships are well established; the authors note that on datasets with weak or simple structure, the extra parameters can be redundant and degrade performance.
  • Datasets without conceptual relationships among variables are deliberately excluded, which limits the method's scope to domains where such domain knowledge exists.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension of the paper's logic is that the same learned-embedding injection should help any attention-based forecaster on datasets with strong inter-variable relations, while hurting on datasets where the graph is uninformative; the authors do not run this broader sweep.
  • The reported failures on ETTm2 and ETTh1 suggest that the binary graph may be too crude; a graded edge-weight version could preserve the benefits where the binary skeleton currently adds noise.
  • Because the appendix describing the exact graph construction is missing from the preprint, an immediate reproducibility check is to reconstruct the graphs from the cited physical laws and operational principles and compare results.
  • The paper positions itself against dynamic graph neural methods but does not directly benchmark against those models, so the practical claim is limited to beating the same transformer without KGE, not to outperforming graph neural baselines.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for multivariate long-sequence time-series forecasting (LSTF) that augments transformer-based architectures (Transformer, Autoformer, Informer, PatchTST) with learnable Knowledge Graph Embeddings (KGE). The embeddings are constructed from a hand-built binary adjacency matrix that encodes conceptual relationships among variables, multiplied by learnable weight matrices, and added to the standard input embeddings. The method is evaluated on the Weather dataset and four ETT datasets (ETTm1, ETTm2, ETTh1, ETTh2) at horizons 96, 192, 336, and 720, with the central claim that adding KGE consistently improves forecasting accuracy across datasets and horizons.

Significance. The idea of injecting explicit variable-level relational knowledge into transformer time-series models is timely and potentially useful, and the results on the Weather dataset are encouraging. However, the paper's own tables contradict the central claim of consistent improvement, the appendix containing the knowledge-graph definitions and experimental configurations is missing, and the core KGE construction is under-specified. As presented, the contribution cannot be validated or reproduced, and the evidence does not support the headline claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.D, Table III] The central claim that 'our methodology consistently surpasses benchmark results' is directly contradicted by the paper's own Table III. For ETTm2, Transformer with KGE has MSE 1.116 versus 0.515 without at horizon 96, 1.346 versus 0.764 at horizon 192, and 1.573 versus 1.117 at horizon 336, a more than twofold degradation in the first two cases. Autoformer with KGE on ETTh1 degrades at horizons 192 (0.675 versus 0.582) and 336 (0.691 versus 0.550). Informer with KGE on ETTm1 degrades at horizon 720 (1.461 versus 1.031). The text in Section IV.D acknowledges 'sub-optimal results' on these datasets, but that admission is inconsistent with the unqualified claims of consistent improvement in the abstract, introduction, and Section IV.D. The authors should either restrict the claims to datasets where KGE helps or provide an analysis of the conditions under which KGE does and does not help.
  2. [Section IV.B and IV.C, missing Appendix] The knowledge-graph construction is the central modeling choice, yet Section IV.B states that the relational frameworks 'are elaborated in the Appendix' and Section IV.C says that baseline configuration details are 'provided in the Appendix.' The submitted manuscript contains no appendix. Without the adjacency matrices for each dataset and the experimental configuration, the method is not reproducible and the reader cannot assess whether the favorable Weather results arise from the proposed mechanism or from ad-hoc graph choices. This is a load-bearing omission because the method's success depends entirely on the quality and validity of the hand-constructed graph, as the paper itself notes when discussing the failure on ETT datasets.
  3. [Section III.B, Equations (1)-(2)] The construction of WKGE is under-specified. The text says that the adjacency matrix A is 'multiplied by a learnable weight matrix Wl, followed by an Einstein summation with a learnable projection weight matrix Wp,' but no equation defines how the final WKGE is computed from A, Wl, and Wp. Given Wl ∈ R^{V×D} and Wp ∈ R^{L×D}, it is unclear how the Einstein summation yields a tensor of the shape needed to be added to X in Equation (2), or how this tensor varies across the M variables and L time steps. Since KGE is the paper's sole contribution, this mathematical ambiguity is a major technical gap that prevents replication.
  4. [Section IV.D, Table IV] The text claims that 'the integration of KGE with PatchTST for ETT datasets' gives negligible improvement, but Table IV only reports PatchTST results on the Weather dataset. No PatchTST results on any ETT dataset are provided, so this claim is unverifiable. Given that PatchTST is one of the four architectures highlighted in the abstract, the absence of its performance on the ETT benchmarks weakens the paper's experimental completeness.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.D] There is a grammatical error: 'We observe a negligible improvement in the integration of KGE with PatchTST for ETT datasets' should be 'We observe negligible improvement from integrating KGE with PatchTST on ETT datasets.'
  2. [Throughout] The manuscript inconsistently uses 'Timeseries' and 'Time-series' (e.g., the title versus the abstract) and occasionally uses 'LTSF' instead of 'LSTF'; please standardize.
  3. [Section IV.D] No standard deviations, confidence intervals, or multiple random seeds are reported, so statements such as 'consistently surpasses' cannot be evaluated for statistical reliability.
  4. [Figure 2] In Figure 2, the point at which the knowledge graph embedding WKGE is injected is not clearly marked; a clearer diagram would help the reader follow the proposed integration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: KGE is trained end-to-end and evaluated against public benchmark holdouts, with no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: adding a learnable knowledge-graph embedding to Transformer, Autoformer, Informer, and PatchTST improves multivariate long-sequence forecasting. The derivation chain is W_KGE = A * W_l projected via W_p (Section III.B), added to input embeddings (Equations 1-2), followed by standard multi-head attention and MSE training (Equation 7). The adjacency matrix A is a hand-constructed modeling choice, not a quantity derived from the target forecasts; the learnable projections are trained on the same public datasets with held-out evaluation, which is a normal empirical protocol rather than a tautology. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation appears, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates. The paper's own Table III shows large degradations on ETTm2 and ETTh1 that contradict the 'consistently surpasses' claim, and the missing appendix undermines reproducibility, but those are correctness and validity concerns, not circularity. The forecast itself is produced by the trained network from input series and learned parameters; it is not equivalent to the inputs by construction. Accordingly, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method relies on two learned matrices Wl and Wp and on the hand-constructed binary adjacency matrix A, which is not fully specified in the text. The domain assumption that conceptual relationships among variables improve forecasting is the core premise; the paper's own results on ETTm2 and ETTh1 weaken it. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Wl (learnable weight matrix) = learned during training
    Introduced in Section III.B to convert the binary adjacency matrix A into learnable weights.
  • Wp (learnable projection weight matrix) = learned during training
    Introduced in Section III.B to align the KGE shape with the positional embeddings.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Conceptual relationships among variables, as encoded in a hand-built knowledge graph, carry information useful for multivariate LSTF.
    The whole method is predicated on this premise; Section IV.B describes deriving the graph from physical laws and operational principles, but the appendix with details is missing.
  • domain assumption The binary adjacency matrix A correctly represents the relevant inter-variable relationships for the Weather and ETT datasets.
    Section III.B defines A as a binary matrix of edges; errors in this structure would propagate through WKGE.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Knowledge-enhanced Transformer for Multivariate Long Sequence Time-series Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L535ABSK

@misc{pith2026241111046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Knowledge-enhanced Transformer for Multivariate Long Sequence Time-series Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L535ABSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11046}
}
read the original abstract

Multivariate Long Sequence Time-series Forecasting (LSTF) has been a critical task across various real-world applications. Recent advancements focus on the application of transformer architectures attributable to their ability to capture temporal patterns effectively over extended periods. However, these approaches often overlook the inherent relationships and interactions between the input variables that could be drawn from their characteristic properties. In this paper, we aim to bridge this gap by integrating information-rich Knowledge Graph Embeddings (KGE) with state-of-the-art transformer-based architectures. We introduce a novel approach that encapsulates conceptual relationships among variables within a well-defined knowledge graph, forming dynamic and learnable KGEs for seamless integration into the transformer architecture. We investigate the influence of this integration into seminal architectures such as PatchTST, Autoformer, Informer, and Vanilla Transformer. Furthermore, we thoroughly investigate the performance of these knowledge-enhanced architectures along with their original implementations for long forecasting horizons and demonstrate significant improvement in the benchmark results. This enhancement empowers transformer-based architectures to address the inherent structural relation between variables. Our knowledge-enhanced approach improves the accuracy of multivariate LSTF by capturing complex temporal and relational dynamics across multiple domains. To substantiate the validity of our model, we conduct comprehensive experiments using Weather and Electric Transformer Temperature (ETT) datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11046 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Venn diagram illustrating the central role of Knowledge Graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model structure of knowledge-enhanced transformer for LSTF; Knowledge graph embeddings along with Positional embeddings, Value embeddings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flowchart for construction of learnable Knowledge Graph Embeddings (KGE) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Knowledge Graph for Weather dataset; variable relationships are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Short-term rainfall forecasting using multi-layer perceptron,

    P. Zhang, Y . Jia, J. Gao, W. Song, and H. Leung, “Short-term rainfall forecasting using multi-layer perceptron,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 93–106, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [3]

    A review of deep learning models for time series prediction,

    Z. Han, J. Zhao, H. Leung, K. F. Ma, and W. Wang, “A review of deep learning models for time series prediction,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 7833–7848, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [4]

    A real-time weather forecasting and analysis,

    S. Kothapalli and S. Totad, “A real-time weather forecasting and analysis,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Power, Control, Signals and Instrumentation Engineering (ICPCSI) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1567–1570

    work page 2017

  4. [5]

    Robust big data analytics for electricity price forecasting in the smart grid,

    K. Wang, C. Xu, Y . Zhang, S. Guo, and A. Y . Zomaya, “Robust big data analytics for electricity price forecasting in the smart grid,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 34–45, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [6]

    Electric load forecasting based on deep learning and optimized by heuristic algorithm in smart grid,

    G. Hafeez, K. S. Alimgeer, and I. Khan, “Electric load forecasting based on deep learning and optimized by heuristic algorithm in smart grid,” Applied Energy, vol. 269, p. 114915, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [7]

    Traffic flow forecasting for urban work zones,

    Y . Hou, P. Edara, and C. Sun, “Traffic flow forecasting for urban work zones,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1761–1770, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [8]

    Road traffic forecasting: Recent advances and new challenges,

    I. Lana, J. Del Ser, M. Velez, and E. I. Vlahogianni, “Road traffic forecasting: Recent advances and new challenges,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 93–109, 2018

    2018

  8. [9]

    T2f-lstm method for long-term traffic volume prediction,

    R. Li, Y . Hu, and Q. Liang, “T2f-lstm method for long-term traffic volume prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 3256–3264, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 59 references
  1. [10]

    Deep learning with long short-term memory networks and random forests for demand forecasting in multi-channel retail,

    S. Punia, K. Nikolopoulos, S. P. Singh, J. K. Madaan, and K. Litsiou, “Deep learning with long short-term memory networks and random forests for demand forecasting in multi-channel retail,” International journal of production research , vol. 58, no. 16, pp. 4964–4979, 2020

    2020

  2. [11]

    Support vector machine with adaptive parameters in financial time series forecasting,

    L.-J. Cao and F. E. H. Tay, “Support vector machine with adaptive parameters in financial time series forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on neural networks, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1506–1518, 2003

    2003

  3. [12]

    Stock market trend prediction using high-order information of time series,

    M. Wen, P. Li, L. Zhang, and Y . Chen, “Stock market trend prediction using high-order information of time series,” Ieee Access , vol. 7, pp. 28 299–28 308, 2019. 9

    2019

  4. [13]

    Vector autoregressions,

    J. H. Stock and M. W. Watson, “Vector autoregressions,” Journal of Economic perspectives, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 101–115, 2001

    2001

  5. [14]

    Gaussian process for long-term time-series forecasting,

    W. Yan, H. Qiu, and Y . Xue, “Gaussian process for long-term time-series forecasting,” in 2009 international joint conference on neural networks . IEEE, 2009, pp. 3420–3427

    2009

  6. [15]

    Support vector regression,

    D. Basak, S. Pal, D. C. Patranabis et al. , “Support vector regression,” Neural Information Processing-Letters and Reviews, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 203–224, 2007

    2007

  7. [16]

    Nvidia tesla v100 gpu architecture,

    T. NVIDIA, “Nvidia tesla v100 gpu architecture,” Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2017

    2017

  8. [17]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  9. [18]

    Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,

    H. Zhou, S. Zhang, J. Peng, S. Zhang, J. Li, H. Xiong, and W. Zhang, “Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intel- ligence, vol. 35, no. 12, 2021, pp. 11 106–11 115

    2021

  10. [19]

    Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting,

    H. Wu, J. Xu, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 22 419– 22 430, 2021

    2021

  11. [20]

    Fedformer: Frequency enhanced decomposed transformer for long-term series fore- casting,

    T. Zhou, Z. Ma, Q. Wen, X. Wang, L. Sun, and R. Jin, “Fedformer: Frequency enhanced decomposed transformer for long-term series fore- casting,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 27 268–27 286

    2022

  12. [21]

    A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers,

    Y . Nie, N. H. Nguyen, P. Sinthong, and J. Kalagnanam, “A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14730, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Weather dataset: Max planck institute for biogeochemistry, germany,

    “Weather dataset: Max planck institute for biogeochemistry, germany,” https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/wetter/, accessed: 2024-02-10

    2024

  14. [23]

    Pems data source: California department of transportation,

    “Pems data source: California department of transportation,” https: //pems.dot.ca.gov/, accessed: 2024-02-10

    2024

  15. [24]

    ElectricityLoadDiagrams20112014,

    A. Trindade, “ElectricityLoadDiagrams20112014,” UCI Machine Learn- ing Repository, 2015, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C58C86

    2015 doi

  16. [25]

    Ili dataset: National, regional, and state level outpatient illness and viral surveillance,

    “Ili dataset: National, regional, and state level outpatient illness and viral surveillance,” https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/fluportaldashboard. html, accessed: 2024-02-10

    2024

  17. [26]

    Time-series forecasting with deep learning: a survey,

    B. Lim and S. Zohren, “Time-series forecasting with deep learning: a survey,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A , vol. 379, no. 2194, p. 20200209, 2021

    2021

  18. [27]

    Relphormer: Relational graph transformer for knowledge graph rep- resentations,

    Z. Bi, S. Cheng, J. Chen, X. Liang, F. Xiong, and N. Zhang, “Relphormer: Relational graph transformer for knowledge graph rep- resentations,” Neurocomputing, vol. 566, p. 127044, 2024

    2024

  19. [28]

    Long-range trans- formers for dynamic spatiotemporal forecasting,

    J. Grigsby, Z. Wang, N. Nguyen, and Y . Qi, “Long-range trans- formers for dynamic spatiotemporal forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12218, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Multivariate long sequence time-series forecasting using dynamic graph learning,

    X. Wang, Y . Wang, J. Peng, and Z. Zhang, “Multivariate long sequence time-series forecasting using dynamic graph learning,” Journal of Am- bient Intelligence and Humanized Computing , vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 7679– 7693, 2023

    2023

  21. [30]

    Long-term spatio-temporal forecasting via dynamic multiple-graph attention,

    W. Shao, Z. Jin, S. Wang, Y . Kang, X. Xiao, H. Menouar, Z. Zhang, J. Zhang, and F. Salim, “Long-term spatio-temporal forecasting via dynamic multiple-graph attention,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11008 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Stwave+: A multi- scale efficient spectral graph attention network with long-term trends for disentangled traffic flow forecasting,

    Y . Fang, Y . Qin, H. Luo, F. Zhao, and K. Zheng, “Stwave+: A multi- scale efficient spectral graph attention network with long-term trends for disentangled traffic flow forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2023

    2023

  23. [32]

    Multivariate time series forecasting with dynamic graph neural odes,

    M. Jin, Y . Zheng, Y .-F. Li, S. Chen, B. Yang, and S. Pan, “Multivariate time series forecasting with dynamic graph neural odes,” IEEE Trans- actions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2022

    2022

  24. [33]

    Multi-scale adaptive graph neural network for multivariate time series forecasting,

    L. Chen, D. Chen, Z. Shang, B. Wu, C. Zheng, B. Wen, and W. Zhang, “Multi-scale adaptive graph neural network for multivariate time series forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2023

    2023

  25. [34]

    G. E. Box, G. M. Jenkins, G. C. Reinsel, and G. M. Ljung, Time series analysis: forecasting and control . John Wiley & Sons, 2015

    2015

  26. [35]

    The fundamental theorem of exponential smoothing,

    R. G. Brown and R. F. Meyer, “The fundamental theorem of exponential smoothing,” Operations Research, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 673–685, 1961

    1961

  27. [36]

    Stl: A seasonal-trend decomposition procedure based on loess,

    C. RB, “Stl: A seasonal-trend decomposition procedure based on loess,” J Off Stat , vol. 6, pp. 3–73, 1990

    1990

  28. [37]

    Predicting the present with bayesian structural time series,

    S. L. Scott and H. R. Varian, “Predicting the present with bayesian structural time series,” International Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Optimisation , vol. 5, no. 1-2, pp. 4–23, 2014

    2014

  29. [38]

    West and J

    M. West and J. Harrison, Bayesian forecasting and dynamic models . Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  30. [39]

    Pyraformer: Low-complexity pyramidal attention for long-range time series modeling and forecasting,

    S. Liu, H. Yu, C. Liao, J. Li, W. Lin, A. X. Liu, and S. Dustdar, “Pyraformer: Low-complexity pyramidal attention for long-range time series modeling and forecasting,” inInternational conference on learning representations, 2021

    2021

  31. [40]

    Modeling long-and short-term temporal patterns with deep neural networks,

    G. Lai, W.-C. Chang, Y . Yang, and H. Liu, “Modeling long-and short-term temporal patterns with deep neural networks,” in The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval, 2018, pp. 95–104

    2018

  32. [41]

    Reformer: The efficient trans- former,

    N. Kitaev, Ł. Kaiser, and A. Levskaya, “Reformer: The efficient trans- former,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04451 , 2020

    2001 arXiv

  33. [42]

    An attention free long short-term memory for time series forecasting,

    H. Inzirillo and L. De Villelongue, “An attention free long short-term memory for time series forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.09548 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Improving position encoding of transformers for multivariate time series classifica- tion,

    N. M. Foumani, C. W. Tan, G. I. Webb, and M. Salehi, “Improving position encoding of transformers for multivariate time series classifica- tion,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 22–48, 2024

    2024

  35. [44]

    Cape: Encoding relative positions with continuous augmented positional embeddings,

    T. Likhomanenko, Q. Xu, G. Synnaeve, R. Collobert, and A. Rogozh- nikov, “Cape: Encoding relative positions with continuous augmented positional embeddings,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 16 079–16 092, 2021

    2021

  36. [45]

    Roformer: En- hanced transformer with rotary position embedding,

    J. Su, M. Ahmed, Y . Lu, S. Pan, W. Bo, and Y . Liu, “Roformer: En- hanced transformer with rotary position embedding,” Neurocomputing, vol. 568, p. 127063, 2024

    2024

  37. [46]

    Non-stationary transformers: Exploring the stationarity in time series forecasting,

    Y . Liu, H. Wu, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Non-stationary transformers: Exploring the stationarity in time series forecasting,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 9881–9893, 2022

    2022

  38. [47]

    The graph neural network model,

    F. Scarselli, M. Gori, A. C. Tsoi, M. Hagenbuchner, and G. Monfar- dini, “The graph neural network model,” IEEE transactions on neural networks, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 61–80, 2008

    2008

  39. [48]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Dmgan: Dynamic multi- hop graph attention network for traffic forecasting,

    R. Li, F. Zhang, T. Li, N. Zhang, and T. Zhang, “Dmgan: Dynamic multi- hop graph attention network for traffic forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2022

    2022

  41. [50]

    An epidemio- logical neural network exploiting dynamic graph structured data applied to the covid-19 outbreak,

    V . La Gatta, V . Moscato, M. Postiglione, and G. Sperl ´ı, “An epidemio- logical neural network exploiting dynamic graph structured data applied to the covid-19 outbreak,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 45–55, 2021

    2021

  42. [51]

    Dynamic hypergraph structure learning for multivariate time series forecasting,

    S. Wang, Y . Zhang, X. Lin, Y . Hu, Q. Huang, and B. Yin, “Dynamic hypergraph structure learning for multivariate time series forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 556–567, 2024

    2024

  43. [52]

    Dstagcn: Dynamic spatial-temporal adjacent graph convolutional network for traffic forecasting,

    Q. Zheng and Y . Zhang, “Dstagcn: Dynamic spatial-temporal adjacent graph convolutional network for traffic forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 241–253, 2023

    2023

  44. [53]

    Spatio-temporal graph convolutional networks: A deep learning framework for traffic forecasting,

    B. Yu, H. Yin, and Z. Zhu, “Spatio-temporal graph convolutional networks: A deep learning framework for traffic forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.04875, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Spectral temporal graph neural network for multivariate time-series forecasting,

    D. Cao, Y . Wang, J. Duan, C. Zhang, X. Zhu, C. Huang, Y . Tong, B. Xu, J. Bai, J. Tong et al. , “Spectral temporal graph neural network for multivariate time-series forecasting,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 17 766–17 778, 2020

    2020

  46. [55]

    Self-attention graph convolution residual network for traffic data completion,

    Y . Zhang, X. Wei, X. Zhang, Y . Hu, and B. Yin, “Self-attention graph convolution residual network for traffic data completion,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 528–541, 2023

    2023

  47. [56]

    A generalization of transformer networks to graphs,

    V . P. Dwivedi and X. Bresson, “A generalization of transformer networks to graphs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.09699 , 2020

    2012 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Graphformer: Adaptive graph correlation transformer for multivariate long sequence time series forecasting,

    Y . Wang, H. Long, L. Zheng, and J. Shang, “Graphformer: Adaptive graph correlation transformer for multivariate long sequence time series forecasting,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 285, p. 111321, 2024

    2024

  49. [58]

    Direct multi-step estimation and forecasting,

    G. Chevillon, “Direct multi-step estimation and forecasting,” Journal of Economic Surveys, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 746–785, 2007

    2007

  50. [59]

    An empirical investigation of direct and iterated multistep conditional forecasts,

    M. W. McCracken and J. T. McGillicuddy, “An empirical investigation of direct and iterated multistep conditional forecasts,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 181–204, 2019

    2019

  51. [60]

    Are transformers effective for time series forecasting?

    A. Zeng, M. Chen, L. Zhang, and Q. Xu, “Are transformers effective for time series forecasting?” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 37, no. 9, 2023, pp. 11 121–11 128

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.