Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

FGATT: A Robust Framework for Wireless Data Imputation Using Fuzzy Graph Attention Networks and Transformer Encoders

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FGATT combines fuzzy graph attention with a Transformer encoder and reports the best imputation accuracy on SWaT water-treatment data across missing rates from 20% to 80%.

desk verdict Incomplete manuscript: the central empirical claim is unverifiable as written, and the forward pass for missing data is never defined. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01979 v2 pith:6BX63FV2 submitted 2024-12-02 cs.LG cs.IRcs.NE

Jinming Xing , Chang Xue , Dongwen Luo , Ruilin Xing This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.IRcs.NE
keywords dataimputationfuzzygraphattentionnetworksTransformerencoderwirelesssensordynamicconstructionroughsetsspatio-temporalmodelingmissing
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 proposes FGATT, a two-stage neural architecture for filling missing wireless sensor readings. The first stage adaptively builds a graph among sensors, using fuzzy rough sets to score how strongly one sensor's reading relates to another, so no predefined spatial map is needed. The second stage passes graph-refined representations through a Transformer encoder to capture temporal dependencies. The authors report the lowest mean squared error, mean absolute error, and root mean squared error on two SWaT benchmark subsets at most tested missing rates from 20% to 80%, with the gap over baselines widening when more than half the data is absent. A sympathetic reader would take the contribution to be a practical, map-free spatial-temporal imputation module for wireless and IoT settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a self-adaptive graph constructed from fuzzy rough-set connectivity scores. For each pair of nodes, a score is computed as a weighted combination of fuzzy lower- and upper-approximation memberships, averaged over a 16-timestep context window, and only the top-$K$ edges are retained. A GAT layer aggregates neighbor information over this dynamically built graph, and a Transformer encoder's self-attention then captures temporal dependencies. This design replaces the static, predefined graphs used by earlier spatio-temporal models with a connectivity structure learned directly from the data.

What would settle it

Keep FGATT's architecture fixed but replace the connectivity score in Eq. (2) with random edge weights or with a static distance-based graph on the same SWaT datasets; if the MSE, MAE, and RMSE curves at 20% to 80% missingness change only slightly, the fuzzy-rough-set graph is not the source of the reported advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that FGATT, the hybrid of fuzzy rough-set dynamic graph construction, GAT spatial aggregation, and a Transformer encoder, outperforms the compared baselines in imputation accuracy and robustness, particularly at high missingness. On SWaT.A7.22, the paper reports that FGATT demonstrates the best average performance across all metrics, and on SWaT.A7.29 it consistently achieves the best performance under all metrics. The authors attribute this advantage to the dynamic graph's ability to capture spatial dependencies without predefined spatial information, while the Transformer encoder models temporal patterns. If correct, this would make FGATT a useful drop-in imputation tool for wireless sensor networks where sensor maps are unavailable or unreliable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dynamic graph built from the fuzzy rough-set connectivity score in Eq. (2) captures genuine spatial relationships among the sensors, so that the graph module, rather than the Transformer or the GAT attention itself, is what drives the reported accuracy gains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At test missing rates below the 50% training rate, FGATT keeps errors stable, so a model trained once at high missingness can serve deployments with less missing data.
  • Above 50% missingness, FGATT degrades more gracefully than the baselines, and TGCN shows the steepest drop, suggesting static-graph spatial models are the weakest in sparse regimes.
  • Because the graph is built from data rather than sensor coordinates, the method applies to datasets where spatial metadata is missing or untrusted.
  • The encoder-only Transformer design is presented as a balance between computational cost and information richness, so the architecture is intended to scale to longer sensor sequences.
  • The paper's evaluation protocol on the two SWaT subsets provides a reusable benchmark for future imputation work: normalization, a 70/10/20 split, context length 16, and missing-rate sweeps from 20% to 80%.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not test is streaming imputation: because connectivity scores are computed per timestep, the graph can in principle be updated online as new sensor readings arrive, provided the pooling window stays short.
  • The same adaptive graph construction could transfer to non-geospatial multivariate time series such as finance or health monitoring, where 'spatial' dependence is functional rather than physical; the paper's experiments do not demonstrate this transfer.
  • The choice of mean pooling is borrowed from sentiment-analysis pooling comparisons; a drop-in ablation replacing it with max or weighted-sum pooling would reveal whether the aggregation strategy affects imputation quality.
  • If the reported gains persist when the fuzzy-rough connectivity score is replaced by a simpler learned distance metric, then the fuzzy-rough component is not the active ingredient; the paper reports no such control, making that a testable implication of its robustness claim.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FGATT, a framework for wireless sensor data imputation that combines a Fuzzy Graph Attention Network (FGAT) with a Transformer encoder. The FGAT component uses fuzzy rough sets to construct a dynamic graph from node embeddings, obviating the need for predefined spatial structure, while the Transformer models temporal dependencies. The authors claim that FGATT outperforms FFN, BGRU, Transformer, and TGCN baselines on SWaT sub-datasets at missing rates from 20% to 80%, and that the fuzzy rough set dynamic graph is responsible for the gains. The manuscript describes the proposed architecture, defines the connectivity score in Eq. (2), and outlines the experimental setup, but it does not provide the actual figures or numeric results, nor does it specify how missing values are represented in the model input.

Significance. If validated, the combination of self-adaptive fuzzy graph construction with a Transformer encoder would be a useful contribution to imputation in wireless sensor networks and IoT settings, where spatial topology is often unknown and missingness is high. The paper also has a plausible conceptual motivation: coupling fuzzy rough sets with graph attention to build dynamic connectivity can in principle capture uncertainty in sensor relationships. However, the significance depends entirely on the empirical claim of state-of-the-art accuracy and robustness, and that claim is not evidenced in the supplied text: Figures 2 and 3 are missing, no numeric MSE/MAE/RMSE values or error bars are reported, and the forward pass under missing data is underspecified. Because the paper's central contribution is empirical, these omissions are load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Figures 2 and 3] The central claim—that FGATT outperforms all baselines in imputation accuracy and robustness—is unsupported because Figures 2 and 3 are absent and no numeric MSE, MAE, or RMSE values are reported in the text. Statements such as 'FGATT demonstrates the best average performance across all metrics' and 'outperforms baselines by a significant margin' cannot be verified. Please provide a complete results table (or actual figures) with the exact metric values for each dataset, each missing rate, and each baseline, along with standard deviations across multiple runs.
  2. [§3.1, Eqs. (1)-(2), and §4.2] The forward pass for missing data is not defined. Equations (1) and (2) compute connectivity scores from node embeddings x_i^t and x_j^t, but the manuscript never states how unobserved entries are represented in the input tensor—there is no mention of masking, zero-filling, a learned mask token, or a preliminary imputation layer. If missing values are replaced by a constant after min-max normalization, the fuzzy lower and upper approximations in Eq. (1) will be dominated by the missingness indicator rather than by sensor relationships, and the dynamic graph would learn connectivity from the mask pattern. Please specify the exact input representation for unobserved entries and justify that it preserves spatial signal.
  3. [§4.3 and §3.2] No ablation or sensitivity analysis isolates the contribution of the fuzzy rough set connectivity score to the reported gains. The abstract and Section 4.3 attribute improved robustness to 'fuzzy rough sets-based dynamic graph construction,' but the paper does not compare against a version of the model with a randomly generated graph, a distance-based graph, or a graph learned by a standard GAT layer. Please include ablations that vary the graph construction mechanism, the Transformer component, and hyperparameters such as alpha, top-K, and context window T to support the claimed causal role of the fuzzy graph.
  4. [§4.2] The experimental protocol is incomplete. The masking procedure (e.g., random vs. structured, MCAR/MAR, whether the same mask is used across methods), the number of independent runs, random seeds, and architecture details (number of layers, hidden sizes, dropout, learning rate) are not reported. Additionally, the claim in Section 4.3 that models 'overfit at the 50% missing rate' requires quantitative comparison of performance across missing rates. Without these details, the evaluation is not reproducible and the claimed trends cannot be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1 and §2] Because Eq. (2) and the pooling choice are taken verbatim from the authors' prior work [23] and [26], the novelty of FGATT beyond those papers should be stated explicitly in the contribution list.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (2)] The notation R_B^{d_j}(x_i^t) relies on the definitions in Eq. (1), but the role of the decision attribute d_j in the connectivity score is not explained; please clarify how d_j is obtained for each node and time step.
  3. [§4.1, Table 1] The sample counts for SWaT.A7.22 (3600) and SWaT.A7.29 (7201) are unusually small for SWaT, which normally contains much longer recordings; please confirm the selection procedure and explain these sub-dataset sizes.
  4. [§4.3] The results section breaks off mid-sentence after 'the FGAT framework, which efficiently aggregates spatial and temporal'; the sentence should be completed and the discussion of Figure 3 finished.
  5. [References] Reference [7] is a survey/catalog of transformer models rather than the original transformer paper; please cite the primary source for the Transformer architecture.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Architecture is heavily self-cited, but the SWaT evaluation is independent; no prediction reduces to a fit or to its inputs by construction.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3.1, Eq. (2); Section 3.2; Section 1 contribution list]
    "To capture dynamic spatial relationships, we compute connectivity scores between nodes at each timestep. Given two nodes i,j and their embeddings x_i^t, x_j^t in R^d at time t, the connectivity score is defined as follows [23]: S^t(i,j) = alpha * R_B^{d_j}(x_i^t) + (1-alpha) * R_B^{d_i}(x_j^t)."

    The paper lists 'Dynamic Graph Construction: A novel self-adaptive connectivity learning approach' as a main contribution, but Eq. (2) — the core of that construction — is explicitly imported from the first author's prior paper [23], and the FGAT layer is likewise 'as proposed in [23].' The central spatial mechanism is therefore inherited by self-citation rather than derived or independently established here. The robustness explanation in Section 4.3 ('fuzzy rough sets-based dynamic graph captures meaningful spatial dependencies') rests on that imported equation. This is load-bearing self-citation, but not a full reduction: the SWaT experiments are new and external, so the empirical superiority claim is not forced by construction.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain from Eq. (1) through Eq. (6) to the SWaT results. No equation is shown to define its target in terms of itself, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the central claim — superior imputation accuracy on SWaT.A7.22 and SWaT.A7.29 — is tested on an external benchmark not used to define the model. The main circularity-adjacent concern is that the spatial component is taken nearly verbatim from the authors' own prior papers: Eq. (2) cites [23], the FGAT layer is 'as proposed in [23],' the pooling choice follows [26], and the fuzzy approximations rest partly on [25]. Because those prior works are not machine-checked or independently reproduced in this manuscript, the architectural novelty leans on self-citation. That is a real weakness, but the experimental evaluation is new, so the paper's main empirical claim retains independent content. The more serious problems — missing numeric results, absent ablations, and the underspecified forward pass for unobserved entries in Eq. (2) — are correctness and completeness issues rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

FGATT introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; its components are standard Transformer blocks plus a fuzzy graph construction imported from the authors' prior work. The central claim rests on several unstated experimental choices, including the fuzzy kernel, alpha, top-K, masking procedure, and baseline tuning, which are listed as free parameters and domain assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha in connectivity score
    Eq. (2) defines Score_t(i,j) = alpha times the lower approximation plus (1-alpha) times the upper approximation. alpha is described as a hyperparameter, but no value or tuning procedure is given.
  • top-K edge threshold
    Section 3.1 retains only the top K edges based on connectivity scores. K is not specified, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • fuzzy kernel R
    Eq. (1) invokes a kernel function R following [25]. The specific kernel used in the experiments is not stated.
  • architecture hyperparameters
    Number of FGAT layers, GAT heads, Transformer layers and heads, hidden dimensions, dropout, learning rate, and optimizer are not reported.
  • context window T = 16
    Section 4.2 sets the context length to 16 timesteps. This is a hand-chosen experimental setting that affects the graph aggregation in Eq. (3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fuzzy lower and upper approximations in Eq. (1) capture useful relational structure for wireless sensor readings.
    Eq. (1) is imported from [24,25]; the paper assumes this fuzzy rough set formulation transfers to sensor data without modification.
  • domain assumption The connectivity score in Eq. (2) is a meaningful measure of spatial dependence between sensor nodes.
    The score is taken verbatim from the authors' prior link-prediction paper [23] and is assumed to work for SWaT imputation without evidence.
  • domain assumption Random missingness at rates from 20% to 80% is an appropriate evaluation protocol for real wireless missing data.
    Section 4.2 trains at 50% random missing and evaluates at rates 20-80%; the paper does not justify that random masking reflects real sensor failures or transmission losses.
  • domain assumption The compared baselines are implemented and tuned fairly.
    No baseline configuration, hyperparameter search budget, or masking protocol is described, yet the superiority claim depends entirely on a fair comparison.
  • standard math Standard multi-head self-attention is appropriate for this time-series imputation task.
    The Transformer encoder in Section 3.3 follows the standard architecture; the paper assumes it provides useful temporal modeling for sensor sequences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FGATT: A Robust Framework for Wireless Data Imputation Using Fuzzy Graph Attention Networks and Transformer Encoders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BX63FV2

@misc{pith2026241201979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FGATT: A Robust Framework for Wireless Data Imputation Using Fuzzy Graph Attention Networks and Transformer Encoders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BX63FV2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01979}
}
read the original abstract

Missing data is a pervasive challenge in wireless networks and many other domains, often compromising the performance of machine learning and deep learning models. To address this, we propose a novel framework, FGATT, that combines the Fuzzy Graph Attention Network (FGAT) with the Transformer encoder to perform robust and accurate data imputation. FGAT leverages fuzzy rough sets and graph attention mechanisms to capture spatial dependencies dynamically, even in scenarios where predefined spatial information is unavailable. The Transformer encoder is employed to model temporal dependencies, utilizing its self-attention mechanism to focus on significant time-series patterns. A self-adaptive graph construction method is introduced to enable dynamic connectivity learning, ensuring the framework's applicability to a wide range of wireless datasets. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods in imputation accuracy and robustness, particularly in scenarios with substantial missing data. The proposed model is well-suited for applications in wireless sensor networks and IoT environments, where data integrity is critical.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fuzzy Graph Attention-Transformer Network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance Evaluation on SWaT.A7.22 (a) Mean Squared Error (b) Mean Absolute Error (c) Root Mean Squared Error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance Evaluation on SWaT.A7.29 Performance on A7.22 Dataset: FGATT demonstrates the best average performance across all metrics. For missing rates below 50%, FGATT maintains stable errors, as it was trained with a 50% missing rate. This robustness indicates the model’s ability to generalize well under less challenging conditions. Other baselines, including BGRU, Transformer, and TGCN, exhibit similar patterns … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multi-view Fuzzy Graph Attention Networks for Enhanced Graph Learning

    cs.LG 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A graph classification model that adds linear multi-view projections and weighted-sum pooling to a fuzzy graph attention network reports accuracy gains on PROTEINS, NCI1, and Mutagenicity.

  2. Enhanced Convolutional Neural Networks for Improved Image Classification

    cs.CV 2025-02 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    An enhanced CNN with standard techniques claims 84.95% on CIFAR-10, but weak baselines and missing evidence undermine the contribution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [23]

    Enhancing Link Prediction with Fuzzy Graph Attention Networks and Dynamic Negative Sampling

    Xing, Jinming. "Enhancing Link Prediction with Fuzzy Graph Attention Networks and Dynamic Negative Sampling. " arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07482 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [26]

    Comparative Analysis of Pool- ing Mechanisms in LLMs: A Sentiment Analysis Perspective

    Xing, Jinming, Ruilin Xing, and Yan Sun. "Comparative Analysis of Pool- ing Mechanisms in LLMs: A Sentiment Analysis Perspective. " arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14654 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Stock price prediction using the ARIMA model

    Ariyo, Adebiyi A., Adewumi O. Adewumi, and Charles K. Ayo. "Stock price prediction using the ARIMA model. " In 2014 UKSim-AMSS 16th international conference on computer modelling and simulation, pp. 106-112. IEEE, 2014. FGATT: A Robust Framework for Wireless Data Imputation Using Fuzzy Graph Attention Networks and Transformer Encoders ISMSI ’25, Tokyo, Japan,

    work page 2014

  4. [2]

    Support vector machine

    Suthaharan, Shan, and Shan Suthaharan. "Support vector machine. " Machine learning models and algorithms for big data classification: thinking with examples for effective learning (2016): 207-235

    work page 2016

  5. [3]

    Peck, and G

    Montgomery, Douglas C., Elizabeth A. Peck, and G. Geoffrey Vining. Introduction to linear regression analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    Attention is all you need

    Vaswani, A. "Attention is all you need. " Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems (2017)

    2017

  7. [5]

    A review of recurrent neural networks: LSTM cells and network architectures

    Yu, Yong, Xiaosheng Si, Changhua Hu, and Jianxun Zhang. "A review of recurrent neural networks: LSTM cells and network architectures. " Neural computation 31, no. 7 (2019): 1235-1270

    work page 2019

  8. [6]

    Em- pirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling

    Chung, Junyoung, Caglar Gulcehre, KyungHyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. "Em- pirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. " arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555 (2014)

    arXiv 2014

Show all 29 references
  1. [7]

    Transformer models: an introduction and catalog

    Amatriain, Xavier, Ananth Sankar, Jie Bing, Praveen Kumar Bodigutla, Timothy J. Hazen, and Michaeel Kazi. "Transformer models: an introduction and catalog. " arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07730 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Patch-aware Vector Quantized Codebook Learning for Unsupervised Visual Defect Detection

    Cheng, Qisen, Shuhui Qu, and Janghwan Lee. "Patch-aware Vector Quantized Codebook Learning for Unsupervised Visual Defect Detection. " In *2024 IEEE 36th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI)*, pp. 586-592. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  3. [9]

    Unifying Prediction and Explanation in Time-Series Transformers via Shapley-based Pretraining

    Cheng, Qisen, Jinming Xing, Chang Xue, and Xiaoran Yang. "Unifying Prediction and Explanation in Time-Series Transformers via Shapley-based Pretraining. " *arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15070* (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  4. [10]

    72-3: Deep Learning Based Visual Defect Detection in Noisy and Imbalanced Data

    Cheng, Qisen, Shuhui Qu, and Janghwan Lee. "72-3: Deep Learning Based Visual Defect Detection in Noisy and Imbalanced Data. " In *SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers*, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 971-974. 2022

    2022

  5. [11]

    Estimation of Energy and Time Us- age in 3D Printing With Multimodal Neural Network

    Cheng, Qisen, Chang Zhang, and Xiang Shen. "Estimation of Energy and Time Us- age in 3D Printing With Multimodal Neural Network. " In *2022 4th International Conference on Frontiers Technology of Information and Computer (ICFTIC)*, pp. 900-903. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  6. [12]

    Network Traffic Forecasting via Fuzzy Spatial-Temporal Fusion Graph Neural Networks

    Xing, Jinming, Zhaomin Xiao, Yingyi Wu, Jinran Zhang, Zhuoer Xu, and Zhelu Mai. "Network Traffic Forecasting via Fuzzy Spatial-Temporal Fusion Graph Neural Networks. " In *2024 11th International Conference on Soft Computing & Machine Intelligence (ISCMI)*, pp. 282-286. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  7. [13]

    SHAPNN: Shapley Value Regular- ized Tabular Neural Network

    Cheng, Qisen, Shuhui Qu, and Janghwan Lee. "SHAPNN: Shapley Value Regular- ized Tabular Neural Network. " *arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08799* (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Botnet detection based on machine learning

    Yang, Xiaoran, Zhen Guo, and Zetian Mai. "Botnet detection based on machine learning. " In 2022 International Conference on Blockchain Technology and Infor- mation Security (ICBCTIS), pp. 213-217. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  9. [15]

    Research and application of knowledge graph technology for intelligent question answering

    Lin, Chengrong, Shaofan Chen, Xiaoran Yang, Caimao Li, Cong Qu, and Qiuhong Chen. "Research and application of knowledge graph technology for intelligent question answering. " In 2021 12th International Symposium on Parallel Architec- tures, Algorithms and Programming (PAAP), ...

    2021

  10. [16]

    Research on automatic composition based on multiple machine learning models

    Yang, Xiaoran. "Research on automatic composition based on multiple machine learning models. " In 2021 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Manufacture, pp. 1206-1209. 2021

    2021

  11. [17]

    Image Retrieval Based on Blockchain

    Zhao, Sihao, Jiahui Xie, Chu Lin, Xiaolan Nie, Jun Ye, Xiaoran Yang, and Pengzhi Xu. "Image Retrieval Based on Blockchain. " In 2022 International Conference on Blockchain Technology and Information Security (ICBCTIS), pp. 210-212. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  12. [18]

    Analysis of Lifting Posture by Two Inertial Measurement Units and a Classification Model Based on a Convolutional Neural Network

    Liu, Juncheng, Xiaoran Yang, Jing-Chen Hong, and Hiroyasu Iwata. "Analysis of Lifting Posture by Two Inertial Measurement Units and a Classification Model Based on a Convolutional Neural Network. " In 2024 10th IEEE RAS/EMBS Inter- national Conference for Biomedical Robotics a...

    2024

  13. [19]

    Balancing Real-world Interaction and VR Immersion with AI Vision Robotic Arm

    Yang, Xiaoran, Yang Zhan, Yukiko Iwasaki, Miaohui Shi, Shijie Tang, and Hi- royasu Iwata. "Balancing Real-world Interaction and VR Immersion with AI Vision Robotic Arm. " In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), pp. 2051-2057. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  14. [20]

    Short-Term Traffic Condition Prediction Based on Multi-source Data Fusion

    Deng, Xiaoru, Hui Zhou, Xiaoran Yang, and Chunyang Ye. "Short-Term Traffic Condition Prediction Based on Multi-source Data Fusion. " In International Con- ference on Data Mining and Big Data, pp. 327-335. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2021

    2021

  15. [21]

    TCellSI: A novel method for T cell state assessment and its applications in immune environment prediction

    Yang, Jing-Min, Nan Zhang, Tao Luo, Mei Yang, Wen-Kang Shen, Zhen-Lin Tan, Yun Xia et al. "TCellSI: A novel method for T cell state assessment and its applications in immune environment prediction. " *Imeta* 3, no. 5 (2024): e231

    2024

  16. [22]

    Improvement and Implementation of a Speech Emotion Recognition Model Based on Dual-Layer LSTM

    Yang, Xiaoran, Shuhan Yu, and Wenxi Xu. "Improvement and Implementation of a Speech Emotion Recognition Model Based on Dual-Layer LSTM. " arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09189 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Parameterized maximum-entropy-based three-way approximate attribute reduction

    Gao, Can, et al. "Parameterized maximum-entropy-based three-way approximate attribute reduction. " International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 151 (2022): 85-100

    2022

  18. [25]

    Weighted fuzzy rough sets-based tri- training and its application to medical diagnosis

    Xing, Jinming, Can Gao, and Jie Zhou. "Weighted fuzzy rough sets-based tri- training and its application to medical diagnosis. " Applied Soft Computing 124 (2022): 109025

    2022

  19. [27]

    SWaT: A water treatment testbed for research and training on ICS security

    Mathur, Aditya P., and Nils Ole Tippenhauer. "SWaT: A water treatment testbed for research and training on ICS security. " In 2016 international workshop on cyber-physical systems for smart water networks (CySWater), pp. 31-36. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Time-series production forecasting method based on the integration of Bidirectional Gated Recurrent Unit (Bi-GRU) network and Sparrow Search Algorithm (SSA)

    Li, Xuechen, Xinfang Ma, Fengchao Xiao, Cong Xiao, Fei Wang, and Shicheng Zhang. "Time-series production forecasting method based on the integration of Bidirectional Gated Recurrent Unit (Bi-GRU) network and Sparrow Search Algorithm (SSA). " Journal of Petroleum Science and En...

    2022

  21. [29]

    T-GCN: A temporal graph convolutional network for traffic prediction

    Zhao, Ling, Yujiao Song, Chao Zhang, Yu Liu, Pu Wang, Tao Lin, Min Deng, and Haifeng Li. "T-GCN: A temporal graph convolutional network for traffic prediction. " IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems 21, no. 9 (2019): 3848-3858

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.