A Time-Enhanced Data Disentanglement Network for Traffic Flow Forecasting

Dewen Seng; Mei Wu; Tianfan Jiang; Wenchao Weng; Yiqian Lin

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

A Time-Enhanced Data Disentanglement Network for Traffic Flow Forecasting

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A time-enhanced data disentanglement network claims better traffic forecasts by splitting flow into stable patterns and residual trends.

desk verdict Plausible architecture, but the paper's own Table 2 contradicts its 'superiority over all benchmarks' claim and Table 3's average columns look copy-pasted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02609 v1 pith:HPSBALG4 submitted 2025-06-03 cs.AI

Tianfan Jiang , Mei Wu , Wenchao Weng , Dewen Seng , Yiqian Lin This is my paper

classification cs.AI

keywords trafficflowforecastingdatadisentanglementtime-enhancedmoduledynamicgraphlearningspatiotemporalneuralnetworksPEMSdatasetsgatedmulti-stepprediction

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

The paper proposes TEDDN, a traffic-flow forecasting network whose central idea is that visible traffic flow is a mixture of hidden travel modes and that explicitly splitting it improves prediction. A learned, time-conditioned gate separates the input $X$ into a dominant pattern $X_1=X\odot\Omega$ and a residual $X_2=X-X_1$, where $\Omega\in(0,1)$ is generated from time-slot and node embeddings. A Time-Enhanced Module then sharpens temporal features, and an adaptive residual graph convolution models the resulting streams. On the PEMS03, PEMS04, PEMS07, and PEMS08 datasets with 60-minute history and 60-minute horizon, the authors report aggregate improvements over eleven baseline models, and ablation experiments on PEMS08 attribute the gains to the Time-Enhanced Module, the Disentangle Gate, and the GRU layer.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Disentangle Gate, a learned ratio $\Omega_{t,i}\in(0,1)$ produced from time-slot embeddings $T^D$, $T^W$ and a node embedding $E_i$; it splits the traffic tensor into $X_1$ (one traffic mode's contribution) and $X_2$ (the unexplained residual), so later layers can model the two streams separately. The Time-Enhanced Module adds a second mechanism: global average pooling gives a descriptor $g$, the dot product $c_i=g\odot x_i$ gives an importance coefficient, normalization and an affine transform give $a_i$, and features are scaled by $\mathrm{Sigmoid}(a_i)$. The GC Module completes the architecture with a learnable adjacency matrix $A=\mathrm{ReLU}(\tanh(\alpha(D_{E_1}D_{E_2}^T-D_{E_1}^T D_{E_2})))$ and residual convolution $H^{(k)}=\beta H_{in}+(1-\beta)\tilde{D}^{-1}\tilde{A}H^{(k-1)}$.

What would settle it

Re-run FC-LSTM, DSANet, GraphWaveNet, DCRNN, ASTGCN, STFGNN, STGODE, STG-NCDE, DSTAGNN, ST-AE, and PDFormer under TEDDN's exact 6:2:2 split, 12-step horizon, and evaluation code; if their PEMS03/04/07/08 errors drop to or below the reported TEDDN numbers, the central superiority claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim, stated on its own terms, is that entangled multi-mode traffic data should be decomposed before spatiotemporal modeling, and that temporal information deserves a dedicated enhancement step rather than being learned implicitly. TEDDN computes a per-node, per-time-step gate $\Omega_{t,i}=\mathrm{Sigmoid}(\mathrm{ReLU}(T_t^D\parallel(T_t^W\parallel E_i)W_1)W_2)$, multiplies it into the raw flow to isolate one traffic pattern, and treats the subtraction as residual flow. The Time-Enhanced Module derives normalized importance coefficients $a_i=\gamma\hat{c}_i+\beta$ from a global average-pooled descriptor and scales features by $\mathrm{Sigmoid}(a_i)$, while the GC Module constructs a dynamic non-negative adjacency matrix and applies residual graph convolution. The authors conclude from their tables that this combination yields better 12-step forecasts than adaptive spatiotemporal graph networks and sequence models on the four PEMS datasets, and that each module contributes measurably to the result.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison in Table 2 assumes the eleven baseline results were obtained under the same data split, history and horizon length, normalization, and evaluation code as TEDDN, but the paper does not state whether the baselines were rerun locally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported gains hold under a controlled comparison, explicit temporal-mode disentanglement becomes a viable alternative to end-to-end spatiotemporal encoders for traffic forecasting.
The PEMS08 ablation shows that removing the Disentangle Gate raises average MAE from 13.70 to 15.06 and removing the Time-Enhanced Module raises it to 13.89, so each component carries predictive weight.
The authors' horizon-wise plots indicate that TEDDN's error grows more slowly than baselines such as STGODE, which matters for look-ahead traffic management rather than one-step prediction.
Table 4 reports inference times under eight seconds on PEMS04 and about three seconds on PEMS08, suggesting the added mechanisms do not make the model impractical for near-real-time use.
The architecture is dataset-agnostic and could be retrained on any sensor network with the same 60-minute history and horizon setup.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the gate is conditioned only on time-slot and node embeddings, the paper does not verify that $X_1$ and $X_2$ correspond to physically identifiable modes such as passenger cars versus trucks; identifying what the gate separates is a natural follow-up.
The same split-and-residual architecture could be transferred to other multi-regime time series, such as energy load or crowd flow, to test whether the gain comes from disentanglement itself or from added model capacity.
Applying the Disentangle Gate to a simpler backbone would help isolate whether the empirical improvement is due to the gate or to the combination of stacked modules.
A metric-by-metric reading of the four PEMS tables, rather than an aggregate ranking, is a worthwhile check when comparing TEDDN to its strongest baselines.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the model is a reasonable assembly of known parts—SE-style channel attention, SGE-like time enhancement, a learned sigmoid gate splitting the input, and adaptive residual graph convolution. Nothing fundamentally wrong with the mechanism. The problem is that the paper's central claim, repeated in the abstract and in Section 5.4, that TEDDN shows 'marked superiority over all benchmark approaches', is false on the paper's own numbers. On PEMS08, PDFormer reports MAE 13.58 vs TEDDN 13.70 and MAPE 9.04% vs 9.17%. On PEMS04, PDFormer has lower MAPE (12.10% vs 12.17%). So TEDDN does not beat all benchmarks on all metrics. If the authors meant 'best overall average' or 'best on most metrics,' they need to say so and defend that weaker claim.

The other red flag is Table 3. The 'Average' columns for the three ablated variants appear to be copied from Table 2 baseline rows: w/o TE shows RMSE 34.06/MAPE 14.20, which is exactly FC-LSTM's PEMS08 row; w/o DG shows 26.96/11.32, exactly DSANet's row; w/o GRU shows 30.05/12.15, exactly GraphWaveNet's row. These are not the means of the H3/H6/H12 columns. I can't rule out a formatting accident, but as presented it looks like copy-paste, and it undermines the ablation evidence—the main support for the disentangle gate and TE module.

What the paper does well: the module descriptions are clear, the disentangle gate is a simple and testable idea, and the ablation direction—TE and DG help—is plausible. The processing time table is useful. But there is no code, no seeds, no error bars, so the gains are not independently checkable. The baseline protocol is also uncertain: the paper doesn't state whether baselines were rerun under the same split and normalization, and many PEMS baselines in the literature use different splits.

This paper is for someone who wants to try the disentangle gate in their own traffic model. It deserves a serious referee because the architecture is sane and the idea is worth checking, but the submission needs major revision: correct the overclaim, fix or redo Table 3, and either rerun baselines under a controlled protocol or qualify the comparison. I'd engage after those fixes.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TEDDN, a traffic flow forecasting model that combines a disentangle gate, a time-enhanced module (CWAM/TE), and residual graph convolution with learnable dynamic graphs. The model is evaluated on four PeMS datasets (PEMS03/04/07/08) for 60-minute-ahead prediction and compared with eleven baselines. The paper claims that TEDDN shows marked superiority over all benchmark approaches and that ablation studies confirm the contribution of the disentangle gate and TE module.

Significance. The disentanglement-and-temporal-enhancement architecture is a plausible idea, and the paper includes a fairly wide comparison (eleven baselines) and four real-world datasets. If the empirical claims were reliable, the contribution could be of interest to the traffic-forecasting community. However, the paper's headline claim of superiority is contradicted by its own reported numbers, and the ablation table contains values that exactly duplicate baseline rows from the main comparison table. These problems bear directly on the central claim and on the credibility of the experimental evidence, so the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form.

major comments (3)

[Abstract, Section 5.4, Table 2] The claim that TEDDN shows 'marked superiority over all benchmark approaches' is false as stated when checked against the paper's own Table 2. On PEMS08, PDFormer achieves a lower MAE (13.58 vs. 13.70) and a lower MAPE (9.04% vs. 9.17%) than TEDDN; on PEMS04, PDFormer also achieves a lower MAPE (12.10% vs. 12.17%). Thus TEDDN does not outperform all benchmarks on all metrics on two of the four datasets. If the intended claim is 'best on average' or 'best on most metrics', the paper never defines that weaker claim and Section 5.4 presents the unqualified stronger claim.
[Section 5.5, Table 3] The 'Average' columns in Table 3 are internally inconsistent and contain exact duplications of baseline rows from Table 2. For example, the w/o TE row lists Average RMSE 34.06 and MAPE 14.20%, which are exactly the PEMS08 values for FC-LSTM in Table 2; the w/o DG row lists 26.96 and 11.32%, which are exactly the PEMS08 values for DSANet; and the w/o GRU row lists 30.05 and 12.15%, which are exactly the PEMS08 values for GraphWaveNet. Moreover, the stated averages do not match the means of the Horizon 3, 6, and 12 columns (e.g., w/o TE Average MAE is 13.89, while the mean of 13.17, 13.87, and 15.49 is 14.18). This makes the ablation evidence unreliable and undermines the conclusion that the TE module, Disentangle Gate, and GRU layer contribute to performance.
[Section 5.2 and Section 5.3] The baseline comparison is not documented as a controlled experiment. Section 5.2 lists ten baselines only with citations, and Section 5.3 specifies the training settings for TEDDN (6:2:2 split, 60-minute history and horizon, Adam optimizer, etc.) but nowhere states whether the baseline methods were rerun under the same protocol or whether the numbers were taken from previous publications. Different PeMS papers often use different train/validation/test splits (e.g., 7:2:1) and different horizon settings. Since Table 2 is the sole evidence for the paper's central claim, the absence of protocol documentation is a load-bearing omission.

minor comments (5)

[Tables 2 and 3] The column header 'MASE' appears where 'MAE' is intended (e.g., PEMS04 column in Table 2 and the MAE columns in Table 3).
[Section 5.2] The baseline list writes 'DCRNN ,' without a citation, even though DCRNN is described in Section 2.1 with reference [10]; also 'GraphwaveNet' should be 'Graph WaveNet' for consistency with reference [19].
[Throughout] Several typos and mechanical errors should be corrected: 'ciyies' in the Fig. 1 caption, 'Insistute' in the affiliation block, 'frature' in Section 4.3, and 'Madeptly' in Section 2.2.
[Section 4.3] Equation (4) defines Ω_{t,i} with a node index i, but the text in the following paragraph refers to 'node j'; also the dimensional consistency between Ω ∈ R^{T_h×N×1} and the product X ⊙ Ω in Eq. (5) is not explained.
[Section 5.1] The text says 'PeMS datasets (PEMS03-08)', but the experiments use PEMS03, PEMS04, PEMS07, and PEMS08; the naming should be made precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: TEDDN is an empirical traffic-forecasting evaluation whose predictions are not equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not attempt a first-principles derivation; it proposes an architectural pipeline and evaluates it on held-out test splits of standard PEMS datasets. The prediction output is produced by a learned model from historical inputs, and the reported test metrics are computed on data not used for fitting, so the forecasts are not defined in terms of their fitted targets. The Disentangle Gate decomposition X1 = X ⊙ Ω and X2 = X − X1 is a construction within the model, not a way of defining the prediction as its own input. The TE Module and GC Module are standard learnable components with no equation that reduces the final forecast to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation, reference [14] by co-author Wenchao Weng and colleagues, appears in a related-work sentence describing DDGCRN and is not load-bearing for any claimed result. Concerns about baseline protocol comparability or the fact that Table 2 shows PDFormer beating TEDDN on some PEMS08 metrics are correctness or evidence-quality issues, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited, and the circularity score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

TEDDN is an empirical architecture paper. It contributes no mathematical derivation; the free parameters are the learned weights and hyperparameters of its modules, the axioms are the modeling assumptions that traffic can be split by a sigmoid gate and that learned dynamic graphs capture spatial dependencies, and the invented entities are the latent disentangled components that are never externally validated.

free parameters (6)

Temporal embedding dimensions (T_D, T_W) and node embedding E = not reported
Section 4.3 introduces randomly initialized learnable matrices T_D in R^{N_D x d}, T_W in R^{N_W x d}, E; d and N_D/N_W are not given, and values are fit to data.
Disentangle gate weights W1, W2 = not reported
Eq. 4 uses W1 in R^{(2D+Nd)x d} and W2 in R^{d x 1}; learned end to end; no values or initialization details.
Graph learner scale alpha = not reported
Eqs. 14-16 use scalar alpha for scaling embedding products; selected by hand or tuned but value not reported.
Residual graph convolution retention beta = not reported
Eq. 17: beta controls initial state retention; chosen by hand but value not reported.
TE module normalization parameters gamma, beta, and stability epsilon = not reported
Eqs. 9-12 introduce epsilon, gamma, beta; fitted or preset, values not given.
Grid of hyperparameters (hidden size, layers, propagation depth k, etc.) = e.g., lr 0.002, batch 32, weight decay 1e-5; k not reported
Section 5.3 gives some training settings but omits architecture sizes and graph propagation depth.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper Traffic flow is a mixture of a small number of separable modes, so a learned sigmoid gate can split it into X1 and X2 without supervision.
Section 4.3, Eq. 4-6; no identifiability or ground-truth modes; this is a modeling postulate specific to TEDDN.
domain assumption Channel-wise attention (global average pooling plus two-layer MLP and sigmoid, Eqs. 1-3) improves temporal-feature representation and removes noise.
Section 4.2 and 4.4 rely on SE and SGE-style attention; inherited from [3], assumed beneficial without independent evidence in this setting.
domain assumption Dynamic graph adjacency built from learned node embeddings (Eqs. 14-16) captures true spatial dependencies better than a fixed graph.
Section 4.5; standard adaptive-graph assumption from the Graph WaveNet and DDGCRN line.
domain assumption PEMS datasets with a 6:2:2 split are representative for evaluating traffic forecasting.
Section 5.1-5.3; no cross-dataset generalization analysis or justification of the split ratio.
standard math The residual graph convolution formula H(k) = beta H_in + (1-beta)(D^-1 A) H(k-1) is well-defined and numerically stable.
Eq. 17; assumes D^-1 exists, i.e., no isolated zero-degree node in the learned graph.

invented entities (3)

Disentangled traffic mode components X1 and X2
purpose: Represent the model's claimed separation of traffic flow into a specific mode and its residual; X1 = X * Omega, X2 = X - X1.
No external data (such as vehicle-type or route labels) verifies that these components correspond to real modes; they are trainable outputs of a sigmoid gate.
Traffic modes ('stable patterns and trends')
purpose: Justify the disentanglement narrative and the additive decomposition of traffic flow.
The paper postulates the existence of separable traffic modes but provides no measurement, identifiability constraint, or external validation that such modes exist.
Temporal information clusters with attention coefficients
purpose: Enhance temporal features and reduce noise inside the TE Module.
These are internal learned groupings and coefficients; there is no evidence they correspond to actual temporal regimes beyond the reported ablation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Time-Enhanced Data Disentanglement Network for Traffic Flow Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPSBALG4

@misc{pith2026250602609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Time-Enhanced Data Disentanglement Network for Traffic Flow Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPSBALG4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02609}
}

read the original abstract

In recent years, traffic flow prediction has become a highlight in the field of intelligent transportation systems. However, due to the temporal variations and dynamic spatial correlations of traffic data, traffic prediction remains highly challenging.Traditional spatiotemporal networks, which rely on end-to-end training, often struggle to handle the diverse data dependencies of multiple traffic flow patterns. Additionally, traffic flow variations are highly sensitive to temporal information changes. Regrettably, other researchers have not sufficiently recognized the importance of temporal information.To address these challenges, we propose a novel approach called A Time-Enhanced Data Disentanglement Network for Traffic Flow Forecasting (TEDDN). This network disentangles the originally complex and intertwined traffic data into stable patterns and trends. By flexibly learning temporal and node information through a dynamic graph enhanced by a temporal feature extraction module, TEDDN demonstrates significant efficacy in disentangling and extracting complex traffic information. Experimental evaluations and ablation studies on four real-world datasets validate the superiority of our method.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Pattern Recognition 121, 108252 (2022)

Zamboni, S., Kefato, Z.T., Girdzijauskas, S., et al.: Pedestrian trajectory prediction with convolutional neural networks. Pattern Recognition 121, 108252 (2022)

work page 2022
[2]

In: Proceedings of the web conference 2020

Wang, X., Ma, Y., Wang, Y., et al.: Traffic flow prediction via spatial temporal graph neural network. In: Proceedings of the web conference 2020. pp.1082–1092 (2020)

work page 2020
[3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09646 (2019)

Li, X., Hu, X., Yang, J.: Spatial group -wise enhance: Improving semantic feature learning in convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09646 (2019)

arXiv 2019
[4]

IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35(9), 9168 –9180 (2022)

Jin, M., Zheng, Y., Li, Y.F., et al.: Multivariate time series forecasting with dynamic graph neural odes. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35(9), 9168 –9180 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans -porta- tion Systems 14(4), 1700–1707 (2013)

Jeong, Y.S., Byon, Y.J., Castro -Neto, et al.: Supervised weighting -online learn-ing algo- rithm for short -term traffic flow prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans -porta- tion Systems 14(4), 1700–1707 (2013)

work page 2013
[6]

Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technol- ogies 62, 21–34 (2016)

Cai, P., Wang, Y., Lu, G., et al.: A spatiotemporal correlative k-nearest neighbor model for short-term traffic multistep forecasting. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technol- ogies 62, 21–34 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

IET intelligent transport systems 11(2), 68–75 (2017)

Zhao, Z., Chen, W., Wu, X., et al.: Lstm network: a deep learning approach for short-term traffic forecast. IET intelligent transport systems 11(2), 68–75 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

Soft Computing 24, 16453–16482 (2020)

Hewage, P., Behera, A., Trovati, M., et al.: Tem-poral convolutional neural (tcn) network for an effective weather forecasting using time -series data from the local weather station. Soft Computing 24, 16453–16482 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 26 references

[9]

In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)

Han, H., Zhang, M., Hou, M., et al.:Stgcn: a spatial-temporal aware graph learning method for poi recommendation. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). pp. 1052–1057. IEEE (2020)

2020
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01926 (2017)

Li, Y., Yu, R., Shahabi, C., Liu, Y.: Diffusion convolutional recurrent neural network: Data- driven traffic forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01926 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[11]

Information and Computer Science De- partment University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, USA 855(1-23), 40 (2008)

Senin, P.: Dynamic time warping algorithm review. Information and Computer Science De- partment University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, USA 855(1-23), 40 (2008)

2008
[12]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.04875 (2017)

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

2017 arXiv
[13]

In: Interna- tional conference on machine learning

Cuturi, M., Blondel, M.: Soft-dtw: a differentiable loss function for time-series. In: Interna- tional conference on machine learning. pp. 894–903. PMLR (2017)

2017
[14]

Pattern Recognition 142, 109670 (2023)

Weng, W., Fan, J., Wu, H., et al.: A decomposition dynamic graph convolutional recurrent network for traffic forecasting. Pattern Recognition 142, 109670 (2023)

2023
[15]

In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

Ji, J., Wang, J., Huang, C., et al.: Spatio-temporal self-supervised learning for traffic flow prediction. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. vol. 37, pp. 4356–4364 (2023)

2023
[16]

In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining

Wu, Z., Pan, S., Long, G., et al.: Connecting the dots: Multivari-ate time series forecasting with graph neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. pp. 753 –763 (2020) 12 T.Jiang et al

2020
[17]

Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., Le, Q.V.: Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

2014
[18]

In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on infor- mation and knowledge management

Huang, S., Wang, D., Wu, X., et al.: Dsanet: Dual self -attention network for multivari -ate time series forecasting. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on infor- mation and knowledge management. pp. 2129–2132 (2019)

2019
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00121 (2019)

Wu, Z., Pan, S., Long, G., et al.: Graph wavenet for deep spatial -temporalgraph modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00121 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[20]

Ieee Access 9, 35973–35983 (2021)

Zhu, J., Wang, Q., Tao, C., et al.: Ast-gcn: Attribute-augmented spa-tiotemporal graph con- volutional network for traffic forecasting. Ieee Access 9, 35973–35983 (2021)

2021
[21]

In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

Li, M., Zhu, Z.: Spatial-temporal fusion graph neural networks for traffic flow forecasting. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. vol. 35, pp. 4189 –4196 (2021)

2021
[22]

In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining

Fang, Z., Long, Q., Song, G., et al.: Spatial-temporal graph ode networks for traffic flow forecasting. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. pp. 364–373 (2021)

2021
[23]

In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

Choi, J., Choi, H., Hwang, J., et al.: Graph neural controlled differential equations for traffic forecasting. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. vol. 36, pp. 6367–6374 (2022)

2022
[24]

In: International conference on ma- chine learning

Lan, S., Ma, Y., Huang, W., et al.: Dstagnn: Dynamic spatial-temporal aware graph neural network for traffic flow forecasting. In: International conference on ma- chine learning. pp. 11906–11917. PMLR (2022)

2022
[25]

IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 24(5), 5516–5526 (2023)

Liu, M., Zhu, T., Ye, J., et al.: Spatio-temporal autoencoder for traffic flow prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 24(5), 5516–5526 (2023)

2023
[26]

In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

Jiang, J., Han, C., Zhao, W.X., et al.: Pdformer: Propagation delay -aware dynamic long - range transformer for traffic flow prediction. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. vol. 37, pp. 4365–4373 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Pattern Recognition 121, 108252 (2022)

Zamboni, S., Kefato, Z.T., Girdzijauskas, S., et al.: Pedestrian trajectory prediction with convolutional neural networks. Pattern Recognition 121, 108252 (2022)

work page 2022

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the web conference 2020

Wang, X., Ma, Y., Wang, Y., et al.: Traffic flow prediction via spatial temporal graph neural network. In: Proceedings of the web conference 2020. pp.1082–1092 (2020)

work page 2020

[3] [3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09646 (2019)

Li, X., Hu, X., Yang, J.: Spatial group -wise enhance: Improving semantic feature learning in convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09646 (2019)

arXiv 2019

[4] [4]

IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35(9), 9168 –9180 (2022)

Jin, M., Zheng, Y., Li, Y.F., et al.: Multivariate time series forecasting with dynamic graph neural odes. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35(9), 9168 –9180 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans -porta- tion Systems 14(4), 1700–1707 (2013)

Jeong, Y.S., Byon, Y.J., Castro -Neto, et al.: Supervised weighting -online learn-ing algo- rithm for short -term traffic flow prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans -porta- tion Systems 14(4), 1700–1707 (2013)

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technol- ogies 62, 21–34 (2016)

Cai, P., Wang, Y., Lu, G., et al.: A spatiotemporal correlative k-nearest neighbor model for short-term traffic multistep forecasting. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technol- ogies 62, 21–34 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [7]

IET intelligent transport systems 11(2), 68–75 (2017)

Zhao, Z., Chen, W., Wu, X., et al.: Lstm network: a deep learning approach for short-term traffic forecast. IET intelligent transport systems 11(2), 68–75 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Soft Computing 24, 16453–16482 (2020)

Hewage, P., Behera, A., Trovati, M., et al.: Tem-poral convolutional neural (tcn) network for an effective weather forecasting using time -series data from the local weather station. Soft Computing 24, 16453–16482 (2020)

work page 2020