Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Cross Space and Time: A Spatio-Temporal Unitized Model for Traffic Flow Forecasting

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Traffic forecasting models can be improved by replacing separate spatial and temporal modules with a single low-rank adaptive cell that stores, updates, and interleaves both kinds of information.

desk verdict A credible plug-in adapter for traffic forecasting, but the universal-improvement claim is contradicted by its own Table II and the comparison protocol is underreported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09251 v1 pith:KTDVZPLS submitted 2024-11-14 cs.AI cs.CV

Weilin Ruan , Wenzhuo Wang , Siru Zhong , Wei Chen , Li Liu , Yuxuan Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CV
keywords trafficflowforecastingspatio-temporalgraphneuralnetworkslow-rankmatrixfactorizationheterogeneityresidualfusionadaptivecellPEMSdatasetsdeeplearning
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 traffic-flow forecasting models are held back by a design pattern: computing spatial and temporal dependencies in separate modules. It proposes a unified framework, STUM, whose core cell (ASTUC) stores, updates, and interleaves spatial, temporal, and relational information in one shared low-rank parameter matrix, with multi-layer residual fusion blocks refining local details. On four real-world traffic datasets (PEMS03/04/07/08), the paper reports that adding this framework to six existing spatio-temporal graph neural networks improves every model's MAE and RMSE, often by several percent and in one reported case by roughly 19%, at a cost of only a few extra seconds per training epoch. A sympathetic reader would take the central claim to be that a single unitized representation of space-time correlations is more effective and nearly as cheap as the modular designs that dominate the literature.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Adaptive Spatio-temporal Unitized Cell (ASTUC), a recurrent-style cell that represents the model's parameters as a shared matrix $W$ built from low-rank factors $A\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times r}$ and $B\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times r}$ with $r\ll\min(N,M)$. Instead of having separate spatial and temporal modules, ASTUC alternately computes temporal and spatial state updates $G_t$ and $G_s$ from the same $W$, then updates $W$ from their interaction via an Add&Norm memory step. Multi-Layer Residual Fusion (MLRF) blocks stack several such cells, normalizing inputs (RMSNorm) and using residual/gated fusion so that global backbone features and local unitized features are combined into the final prediction.

What would settle it

Retrain all six baselines from scratch under the exact protocol stated in Section V-A (6:2:2 split, the Adam optimizer, learning rate 0.001, weight decay 0.0005, batch size 64, at most 150 epochs, early stopping at 10) on PEMS03/04/07/08 and compare to the Table II baseline values; if the reproduced baselines already match or beat the STUM-enhanced numbers, or if the reported Δ improvements vanish when the comparison is controlled, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that separating spatial and temporal processing is a source of inefficiency and error, and that a single adaptive cell can replace the separation. ASTUC uses low-rank matrices $A$ and $B$ to build a shared adaptive parameter matrix $W$, which is updated by alternating temporal and spatial state updates $G_t$ and $G_s$ and storing their joint interaction. Stacked in Multi-Layer Residual Fusion blocks and combined with a backbone feature extractor through a gated residual link, the framework yields lower MAE and RMSE than the unmodified backbone on all four datasets and for all six baselines, with the largest reported gain about 19.17% for STGCN; the paper also claims the framework works without a strong backbone, with an MLP extractor beating STGCN, GWNet, and AGCRN in most settings. These results are presented as evidence that a unitized, low-rank treatment of spatio-temporal correlations addresses both module separation and data heterogeneity.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the baseline numbers in Table II come from the same training protocol (same data splits, optimizer, epochs, and hyperparameter search) as the STUM-enhanced versions, because the paper does not explicitly state whether those baselines were retrained under identical conditions or taken from published results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any spatio-temporal graph neural network that can serve as a backbone can be wrapped by STUM and is claimed to gain consistent MAE and RMSE reductions on the four PEMS datasets at roughly 1–2 extra seconds per training epoch.
  • With only an MLP as the global feature extractor, the framework outperforms STGCN, GWNet, and AGCRN on most horizons and datasets, so the benefit is not tied to a sophisticated backbone.
  • The ablations show that increasing the number of ASTUCs gives the largest gain, while more MLRF blocks or a larger embedding dimension help up to a point and then show diminishing returns.
  • The t-SNE case study suggests the MLRF branch pulls regions with similar traffic patterns closer together in embedding space, which the paper ties to finer-grained regional prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A cleaner test of the paper's conceptual claim would be to replace the shared parameter matrix $W$ in ASTUC with two separate low-rank adapters for the temporal and spatial updates; if that variant performs equally, the unitization itself, rather than low-rank parameter efficiency, is not the active ingredient.
  • Since the framework only requires a backbone feature extractor and a graph, the same module could be transferred to other spatio-temporal forecasting settings such as energy load or ride-hailing demand, with the graph redefined for those sensors.
  • The learnable gate $\alpha$ makes the final prediction a convex combination of backbone and MLRF outputs; a natural follow-up is to check whether the learned $\alpha$ correlates with each branch's per-sample confidence, which would make the gating mechanism interpretable as an online model-selection rule.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes STUM, a plug-and-play framework that wraps an existing spatio-temporal graph neural network backbone with an Adaptive Spatio-temporal Unitized Cell (ASTUC) and Multi-Layer Residual Fusion (MLRF) blocks, then fuses the backbone prediction with a local low-rank branch through a learned gating coefficient. The authors claim that STUM improves the MAE/RMSE/MAPE of six backbones on PEMS03/04/07/08 with negligible additional training cost, and that standalone STUM with an MLP backbone is competitive with established STGNN baselines. The paper includes average 12-horizon results, horizon-wise standalone results, efficiency comparisons, ablation studies, and embedding visualizations.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, the modular plug-and-play design and the low-rank efficient implementation would be a useful contribution to traffic flow forecasting, and the authors are to be credited for making the code available and for covering four public datasets with multiple backbones. However, the central claim of universal improvement is not supported by the paper's own Table II, and the enhanced-versus-backbone comparisons lack reported variance or significance. The contribution is therefore conditional on a corrected and controlled experimental comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V-B, Table II] The sentence "all methods trained as backbone network feature extractors combined with the STUM framework achieved more optimal performance than the original model in all datasets" is contradicted by Table II: the STUM-enhanced D2STGNN on PEMS03 has MAPE 16.00% versus 14.89% for the original D2STGNN, a 1.11 percentage-point degradation. Because this sentence is the paper's central empirical claim, the claim must either be removed/qualified or the experiments rerun; as written, the universal-improvement claim is false.
  2. [Section V-A and Table II] The paper states that a t-test with p-value <= 0.05 was performed, but Table II reports no error bars, no number of seeds, and no significance markers for the enhanced-versus-backbone comparisons; the asterisks in Table III apply only to standalone STUM against baselines. Several deltas are far smaller than typical seed variance on these benchmarks (e.g., GWNet PEMS08 MAE Delta = -0.06, D2STGNN PEMS08 MAE Delta = -0.04), and the text does not state whether the "original model" rows were produced under the identical protocol (same split, optimizer, epochs, early stopping, and hyperparameter search) or taken from published values. Because the final prediction in Eq. (12) is a weighted combination of the backbone output and the new branch, the learned gate can in principle shrink toward the backbone alone; a controlled multi-seed rerun under one protocol is needed to establish that the reported improvements are due to the STUM modules rather than to training-protocol differences or noise.
  3. [Section IV-A, Eq. (4)] The low-rank update rule is not well-defined as written. With A in R^{N x r} and B in R^{M x r}, the product A x B^T is N x M, so the expression "A x B^T · r / (alpha + epsilon)" is dimensionally unclear, and it is not explained why the scalar r multiplies the full matrix. It is also unclear whether the scaling factor alpha in Eq. (4) is the same parameter as the gating coefficient alpha in Eq. (12). Additionally, the sentence "During inference, W is frozen and does not receive gradient updates, while A and B remain trainable" is confusing, since inference does not perform gradient updates; please state which parameters are updated during training and which are frozen at test time.
  4. [Section IV-D, Eqs. (9)-(10) and Algorithm 1] The formal description of the MLRF block is ambiguous and does not align with the pseudocode. Eq. (9) writes W(i) = Norm(X) = X · W(i-1) / sqrt((1/d) sum x_i^2 + epsilon), but the dimensions and roles of W, X, and x_i are not defined, and this does not match the standard RMSNorm form described in words. Eq. (10) nests G_t and G_s updates with W(i) as an argument in a way that does not correspond to the ASTUCtime/ASTUCspace order in Algorithm 1. Since the ASTUC/MLRF module is the core methodological novelty, the equations need to be rewritten with exact tensor shapes and variable names so that the method is reproducible from the text alone.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Figure 2] There are typos in the abstract and Figure 2: "S patio-Temporal" should be "Spatio-Temporal", and "Adative" should be "Adaptive".
  2. [Eq. (12)] The symbol F⌊ appears in the text near Eq. (12); it should be F_b or another consistent notation for the backbone prediction. The use of alpha in both Eq. (4) and Eq. (12) should be disambiguated.
  3. [Table III and Figure 4] The baseline name is misspelled as "ACGRN" in Table III and as "GWN" in Figure 4; these should be "AGCRN" and "GWNet" for consistency with Section V-A.
  4. [Table IV] Table IV reports only delta arrows (e.g., "1.28 down, 1.50 down, 2.15% down") without absolute metric values or a clear statement of whether these deltas are relative to the AGCRN baseline at the same horizon. The baseline AGCRN values in Table IV (MAE 25.09, RMSE 37.97, MAPE 19.56%) also differ substantially from the AGCRN row in Table II (MAE 20.74, RMSE 32.61, MAPE 14.57%); please clarify the exact forecasting horizon and selection rule for the numbers in Table IV.
  5. [Section V-A] The description of the significance test is incomplete: it says a t-test with p-value <= 0.05 was performed, but it does not state the number of seeds, whether the test compares paired or unpaired runs, or whether the p-values are corrected for multiple comparisons. This information should be added for reproducibility.
  6. [Figure 6] The label "Bussiness District" is misspelled; it should be "Business District".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: STUM's improvement claim is empirical and contradicted by its own Table II, not forced by construction.

full rationale

STUM is an enhancement wrapper: Eq. (12) defines the final prediction as Z = (1-α)Fb(X:t) + αzt, so the compared 'Ours' contains the backbone as a component. This is a model-versus-model-plus-wrapper comparison, not a circular derivation. The claimed improvement over the backbone is not an identity: α is learned by gradient descent and is not constrained to recover the backbone, and the paper's own Table II shows D2STGNN MAPE on PEMS03 degrading from 14.89% to 16.00%, proving the wrapper does not dominate by construction. All ASTUC/MLRF equations (4)-(12) are stated in the paper. The only same-author citation ([71], 'Low-rank adaptation for spatio-temporal forecasting') appears in the related-work survey of low-rank matrix factorization and is not used to justify any equation, assumption, or uniqueness claim. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no external result is imported to force the architecture. The universal-improvement claim is an empirical claim that is actually contradicted in the paper's own Table II and lacks reported error bars or significance markers for the enhanced-versus-backbone deltas, but these are correctness and reporting concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework's effectiveness rests on several unproven modeling choices: the low-rank approximation assumption, the alternating-update scheme, and the equivalence of baseline evaluation. The free parameters (rank, number of cells, depth, gates) are tuned on the validation set and their sensitivity is shown in Table IV, so the reported gains may partly reflect this tuning.

free parameters (7)
  • Low-rank intrinsic rank / embedding dimension = 16 (default); searched over 12-28
    Controls the rank of the adaptive matrices in ASTUC. Tuned by hand in Section V-D (Table IV); larger values help but with diminishing returns.
  • Number of MLRF blocks = 4 (default); searched over 5-8
    Depth of residual fusion. Manual hyperparameter; Table IV shows performance varies with depth.
  • Number of ASTUC cells (G_s/G_t) = 8 (default); searched over 10-16
    Number of unitized cells for spatial and temporal updates. Ablation in Table IV shows more cells generally improve performance.
  • Scaling factor alpha in the low-rank update (Eq. 4) = Not reported
    Used in the update rule Delta-w = A x B^T * r / (alpha + epsilon). Its value is never specified, making the update numerically ambiguous.
  • Gating coefficient alpha in final fusion (Eq. 12) = Learned during training (no value given)
    Learned gate that weights backbone and ASTUC predictions. It is a learned parameter, so not a fixed fitted constant, but it is a free parameter of the model.
  • Initial learning rate and weight decay = 0.001 and 0.0005
    ADAM optimizer settings given in Section V-A; standard but hand-selected.
  • Maximum epochs and early stopping patience = 150 epochs, patience 10
    Training schedule chosen in Section V-A.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Low-rank matrix factorization can represent salient spatio-temporal dependencies with minimal information loss
    Justifies the ASTUC design throughout Section IV; no proof or quantitative validation of this approximation for traffic data.
  • ad hoc to paper Alternating spatial and temporal updates in ASTUC converge to a useful representation
    Equations (6)-(8) propose iterative updates but provide no convergence analysis or comparison to joint optimization.
  • domain assumption The 6:2:2 temporal split of PEMS datasets is a fair evaluation protocol
    Standard practice in the traffic forecasting literature; accepted without discussion in Section V-A.
  • domain assumption The baseline models are evaluated under conditions equivalent to the STUM variants
    Required for the delta improvements in Table II; never explicitly stated in Section V.
invented entities (2)
  • Adaptive Spatio-temporal Unitized Cell (ASTUC)
    purpose: A low-rank cell that stores and updates spatial, temporal, and relational information within one unit
    Not a physical entity; no external confirmation beyond the paper's experiments. The code link is anonymous and unverified.
  • Multi-layer Residual Fusion (MLRF) block
    purpose: Stacks ASTUCs to alternate temporal and spatial information transmission and fuse features
    Internal architectural invention; validated only on the four PEMS datasets in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross Space and Time: A Spatio-Temporal Unitized Model for Traffic Flow Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTDVZPLS

@misc{pith2026241109251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross Space and Time: A Spatio-Temporal Unitized Model for Traffic Flow Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTDVZPLS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09251}
}
read the original abstract

Predicting spatio-temporal traffic flow presents significant challenges due to complex interactions between spatial and temporal factors. Existing approaches often address these dimensions in isolation, neglecting their critical interdependencies. In this paper, we introduce the Spatio-Temporal Unitized Model (STUM), a unified framework designed to capture both spatial and temporal dependencies while addressing spatio-temporal heterogeneity through techniques such as distribution alignment and feature fusion. It also ensures both predictive accuracy and computational efficiency. Central to STUM is the Adaptive Spatio-temporal Unitized Cell (ASTUC), which utilizes low-rank matrices to seamlessly store, update, and interact with space, time, as well as their correlations. Our framework is also modular, allowing it to integrate with various spatio-temporal graph neural networks through components such as backbone models, feature extractors, residual fusion blocks, and predictive modules to collectively enhance forecasting outcomes. Experimental results across multiple real-world datasets demonstrate that STUM consistently improves prediction performance with minimal computational cost. These findings are further supported by hyperparameter optimization, pre-training analysis, and result visualization. We provide our source code for reproducibility at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/STUM-E4F0.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fig1.Sensor Distribution and Spatiotemporal Dependencies in Traffic Flow Prediction Fig. 1. Motivation of our proposed method. (a) shows the sensor distribution of the PEMS04 dataset. (b) is a visual result of the traffic flow of a pair of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of our proposed method. (a) shows the architecture of the Spatio-Temporal Unitized Model (STUM), where MLP represents the model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of traditional and our proposed Methods. The traditional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Efficiency Study. The results compare the variation in training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of the t-SNE visualization of the Spatio-temporal Unitized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualizations of the traffic flow prediction on the PEMS04 dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [71]

    Low-rank adaptation for spatio-temporal forecasting,

    W. Ruan, W. Chen, X. Dang, J. Zhou, W. Li, X. Liu, and Y . Liang, “Low-rank adaptation for spatio-temporal forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07919, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Data- driven intelligent transportation systems: A survey,

    J. Zhang, F.-Y . Wang, K. Wang, W.-H. Lin, X. Xu, and C. Chen, “Data- driven intelligent transportation systems: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1624–1639, 2011

    2011

  3. [2]

    Big data for social transportation,

    X. Zheng, W. Chen, P. Wang, D. Shen, S. Chen, X. Wang, Q. Zhang, and L. Yang, “Big data for social transportation,” IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems , vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 620–630, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    The sensable city: A survey on the deployment and management for smart city monitoring,

    R. Du, P. Santi, M. Xiao, A. V . Vasilakos, and C. Fischione, “The sensable city: A survey on the deployment and management for smart city monitoring,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1533–1560, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    T-gcn: A temporal graph convolutional network for traffic prediction,

    L. Zhao, Y . Song, C. Zhang, Y . Liu, P. Wang, T. Lin, M. Deng, and H. Li, “T-gcn: A temporal graph convolutional network for traffic prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 3848–3858, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Spatio-temporal graph structure learning for traffic forecasting,

    Q. Zhang, J. Chang, G. Meng, S. Xiang, and C. Pan, “Spatio-temporal graph structure learning for traffic forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 34, no. 01, 2020, pp. 1177–1185

    2020

  7. [6]

    A survey on graph neural networks for time series: Forecasting, classification, imputation, and anomaly detection,

    M. Jin, H. Y . Koh, Q. Wen, D. Zambon, C. Alippi, G. I. Webb, I. King, and S. Pan, “A survey on graph neural networks for time series: Forecasting, classification, imputation, and anomaly detection,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Traffic flow forecasting: comparison of modeling approaches,

    B. L. Smith and M. J. Demetsky, “Traffic flow forecasting: comparison of modeling approaches,” Journal of transportation engineering , vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 261–266, 1997

    work page 1997

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

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

    2015

  2. [9]

    Short-term traffic flow forecast- ing: An experimental comparison of time-series analysis and supervised learning,

    M. Lippi, M. Bertini, and P. Frasconi, “Short-term traffic flow forecast- ing: An experimental comparison of time-series analysis and supervised learning,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 871–882, 2013

    2013

  3. [10]

    Short-term traffic and travel time prediction models,

    J. Van Lint and C. Van Hinsbergen, “Short-term traffic and travel time prediction models,” Artificial Intelligence Applications to Critical Transportation Issues, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 22–41, 2012

    2012

  4. [11]

    L ¨utkepohl, New introduction to multiple time series analysis

    H. L ¨utkepohl, New introduction to multiple time series analysis . Springer Science & Business Media, 2005

    2005

  5. [12]

    Vector autoregressive models for multivariate time series,

    E. Zivot and J. Wang, “Vector autoregressive models for multivariate time series,” Modeling financial time series with S-PLUS® , pp. 385– 429, 2006

    2006

  6. [13]

    Deep architecture for traffic flow prediction: deep belief networks with multitask learning,

    W. Huang, G. Song, H. Hong, and K. Xie, “Deep architecture for traffic flow prediction: deep belief networks with multitask learning,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 2191–2201, 2014

    2014

  7. [14]

    Traffic flow prediction with big data: A deep learning approach,

    Y . Lv, Y . Duan, W. Kang, Z. Li, and F.-Y . Wang, “Traffic flow prediction with big data: A deep learning approach,”Ieee transactions on intelligent transportation systems, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 865–873, 2014

    2014

  8. [15]

    Recent advances in convolutional neural networks,

    J. Gu, Z. Wang, J. Kuen, L. Ma, A. Shahroudy, B. Shuai, T. Liu, X. Wang, G. Wang, J. Cai et al. , “Recent advances in convolutional neural networks,” Pattern recognition, vol. 77, pp. 354–377, 2018

    2018

  9. [16]

    A review of recurrent neural networks: Lstm cells and network architectures,

    Y . Yu, X. Si, C. Hu, and J. Zhang, “A review of recurrent neural networks: Lstm cells and network architectures,” Neural computation , vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1235–1270, 2019

    2019

  10. [17]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  11. [18]

    Combining weather condition data to predict traffic flow: a gru-based deep learning approach,

    D. Zhang and M. R. Kabuka, “Combining weather condition data to predict traffic flow: a gru-based deep learning approach,” IET Intelligent Transport Systems, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 578–585, 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

    Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,

    J. Chung, C. Gulcehre, K. Cho, and Y . Bengio, “Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Diffusion convolutional re- current neural network: Data-driven traffic forecasting,

    Y . Li, R. Yu, C. Shahabi, and Y . Liu, “Diffusion convolutional re- current neural network: Data-driven traffic forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01926, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    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

  15. [22]

    Spatial-temporal graph ode networks for traffic flow forecasting,

    Z. Fang, Q. Long, G. Song, and K. Xie, “Spatial-temporal graph ode networks for traffic flow forecasting,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2021, pp. 364–373

    2021

  16. [23]

    Hierarchical graph convolution network for traffic forecasting,

    K. Guo, Y . Hu, Y . Sun, S. Qian, J. Gao, and B. Yin, “Hierarchical graph convolution network for traffic forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 35, no. 1, 2021, pp. 151–159

    2021

  17. [24]

    Dynamic and multi- faceted spatio-temporal deep learning for traffic speed forecasting,

    L. Han, B. Du, L. Sun, Y . Fu, Y . Lv, and H. Xiong, “Dynamic and multi- faceted spatio-temporal deep learning for traffic speed forecasting,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2021, pp. 547–555

    2021

  18. [25]

    Traffic flow prediction via spatial temporal graph neural network,

    X. Wang, Y . Ma, Y . Wang, W. Jin, X. Wang, J. Tang, C. Jia, and J. Yu, “Traffic flow prediction via spatial temporal graph neural network,” in Proceedings of the web conference 2020 , 2020, pp. 1082–1092. 11

    2020

  19. [26]

    Spatial-temporal fusion graph neural networks for traffic flow forecasting,

    M. Li and Z. Zhu, “Spatial-temporal fusion graph neural networks for traffic flow forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 35, no. 5, 2021, pp. 4189–4196

    2021

  20. [27]

    Coupled layer-wise graph convolution for transportation demand prediction,

    J. Ye, L. Sun, B. Du, Y . Fu, and H. Xiong, “Coupled layer-wise graph convolution for transportation demand prediction,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 35, no. 5, 2021, pp. 4617–4625

    2021

  21. [28]

    Spatiotemporal adaptive gated graph convolution network for urban traffic flow forecasting,

    B. Lu, X. Gan, H. Jin, L. Fu, and H. Zhang, “Spatiotemporal adaptive gated graph convolution network for urban traffic flow forecasting,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International conference on information & knowledge management , 2020, pp. 1025–1034

    2020

  22. [29]

    Spatial-temporal synchronous graph convolutional networks: A new framework for spatial-temporal network data forecasting,

    C. Song, Y . Lin, S. Guo, and H. Wan, “Spatial-temporal synchronous graph convolutional networks: A new framework for spatial-temporal network data forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, no. 01, 2020, pp. 914–921

    2020

  23. [30]

    Auto-stgcn: Autonomous spatial-temporal graph convolutional network search,

    C. Wang, K. Zhang, H. Wang, and B. Chen, “Auto-stgcn: Autonomous spatial-temporal graph convolutional network search,” ACM Transac- tions on Knowledge Discovery from Data , vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1–21, 2023

    2023

  24. [31]

    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

  25. [32]

    Z-gcnets: Time zigzags at graph convolutional networks for time series forecasting,

    Y . Chen, I. Segovia, and Y . R. Gel, “Z-gcnets: Time zigzags at graph convolutional networks for time series forecasting,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 1684–1694

    2021

  26. [33]

    Dynamic spatial-temporal graph convolutional neural networks for traffic forecast- ing,

    Z. Diao, X. Wang, D. Zhang, Y . Liu, K. Xie, and S. He, “Dynamic spatial-temporal graph convolutional neural networks for traffic forecast- ing,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 890–897

    2019

  27. [34]

    Graph wavenet for deep spatial-temporal graph modeling,

    Z. Wu, S. Pan, G. Long, J. Jiang, and C. Zhang, “Graph wavenet for deep spatial-temporal graph modeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00121 , 2019

    1906 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Spatio-temporal meta-graph learning for traffic forecasting,

    R. Jiang, Z. Wang, J. Yong, P. Jeph, Q. Chen, Y . Kobayashi, X. Song, S. Fukushima, and T. Suzumura, “Spatio-temporal meta-graph learning for traffic forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 37, no. 7, 2023, pp. 8078–8086

    2023

  29. [36]

    Con- necting the dots: Multivariate time series forecasting with graph neural networks,

    Z. Wu, S. Pan, G. Long, J. Jiang, X. Chang, and C. Zhang, “Con- necting the dots: Multivariate time series forecasting with graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2020, pp. 753–763

    2020

  30. [37]

    Discrete graph structure learning for forecasting multiple time series,

    C. Shang, J. Chen, and J. Bi, “Discrete graph structure learning for forecasting multiple time series,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06861 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    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

  32. [39]

    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

  33. [40]

    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

  34. [41]

    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

  35. [42]

    Towards spatio-temporal aware traffic time series forecasting–full version,

    R.-G. Cirstea, B. Yang, C. Guo, T. Kieu, and S. Pan, “Towards spatio-temporal aware traffic time series forecasting–full version,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15737, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Urban traffic prediction from spatio-temporal data using deep meta learning,

    Z. Pan, Y . Liang, W. Wang, Y . Yu, Y . Zheng, and J. Zhang, “Urban traffic prediction from spatio-temporal data using deep meta learning,” in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2019, pp. 1720–1730

    2019

  37. [44]

    Learning to remember patterns: pattern matching memory networks for traffic forecasting,

    H. Lee, S. Jin, H. Chu, H. Lim, and S. Ko, “Learning to remember patterns: pattern matching memory networks for traffic forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.10380 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Autostg: Neural architecture search for predictions of spatio-temporal graph,

    Z. Pan, S. Ke, X. Yang, Y . Liang, Y . Yu, J. Zhang, and Y . Zheng, “Autostg: Neural architecture search for predictions of spatio-temporal graph,” in Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , 2021, pp. 1846– 1855

    2021

  39. [46]

    Enhancenet: Plugin neural networks for enhancing correlated time series forecasting,

    R.-G. Cirstea, T. Kieu, C. Guo, B. Yang, and S. J. Pan, “Enhancenet: Plugin neural networks for enhancing correlated time series forecasting,” in 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1739–1750

    2021

  40. [47]

    Pre-training enhanced spatial- temporal graph neural network for multivariate time series forecasting,

    Z. Shao, Z. Zhang, F. Wang, and Y . Xu, “Pre-training enhanced spatial- temporal graph neural network for multivariate time series forecasting,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , 2022, pp. 1567–1577

    2022

  41. [48]

    One fits all: Power general time series analysis by pretrained lm,

    T. Zhou, P. Niu, L. Sun, R. Jin et al. , “One fits all: Power general time series analysis by pretrained lm,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  42. [49]

    Decoupled dynamic spatial-temporal graph neural network for traffic forecasting,

    Z. Shao, Z. Zhang, W. Wei, F. Wang, Y . Xu, X. Cao, and C. S. Jensen, “Decoupled dynamic spatial-temporal graph neural network for traffic forecasting,” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 2733–2746, 2022

    2022

  43. [50]

    Short-term freeway traffic flow prediction: Bayesian combined neural network approach,

    W. Zheng, D.-H. Lee, and Q. Shi, “Short-term freeway traffic flow prediction: Bayesian combined neural network approach,” Journal of transportation engineering, vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 114–121, 2006

    2006

  44. [51]

    Urban traffic flow prediction us- ing a fuzzy-neural approach,

    H. Yin, S. Wong, J. Xu, and C. Wong, “Urban traffic flow prediction us- ing a fuzzy-neural approach,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 85–98, 2002

    2002

  45. [52]

    An aggre- gation approach to short-term traffic flow prediction,

    M.-C. Tan, S. C. Wong, J.-M. Xu, Z.-R. Guan, and P. Zhang, “An aggre- gation approach to short-term traffic flow prediction,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 60–69, 2009

    2009

  46. [53]

    Spatio-temporal graph neural networks for predictive learning in urban computing: A survey,

    G. Jin, Y . Liang, Y . Fang, Z. Shao, J. Huang, J. Zhang, and Y . Zheng, “Spatio-temporal graph neural networks for predictive learning in urban computing: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2023

    2023

  47. [54]

    Hierarchical traffic flow prediction based on spatial-temporal graph convolutional network,

    H. Wang, R. Zhang, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “Hierarchical traffic flow prediction based on spatial-temporal graph convolutional network,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 16 137–16 147, 2022

    2022

  48. [55]

    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

  49. [56]

    Adaptive graph convolutional recurrent network for traffic forecasting,

    L. Bai, L. Yao, C. Li, X. Wang, and C. Wang, “Adaptive graph convolutional recurrent network for traffic forecasting,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 17 804–17 815, 2020

    2020

  50. [57]

    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

  51. [58]

    Position: What can large language models tell us about time series analysis,

    M. Jin, Y . Zhang, W. Chen, K. Zhang, Y . Liang, B. Yang, J. Wang, S. Pan, and Q. Wen, “Position: What can large language models tell us about time series analysis,” in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  52. [59]

    Urbanclip: Learning text-enhanced urban region profiling with contrastive language-image pretraining from the web,

    Y . Yan, H. Wen, S. Zhong, W. Chen, H. Chen, Q. Wen, R. Zimmer- mann, and Y . Liang, “Urbanclip: Learning text-enhanced urban region profiling with contrastive language-image pretraining from the web,” in Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, 2024, pp. 4006–4017

    2024

  53. [60]

    Time-llm: Time series forecasting by re- programming large language models,

    M. Jin, S. Wang, L. Ma, Z. Chu, J. Y . Zhang, X. Shi, P.-Y . Chen, Y . Liang, Y .-F. Li, S. Panet al., “Time-llm: Time series forecasting by re- programming large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01728, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Spatial- temporal-decoupled masked pre-training for spatiotemporal forecasting,

    H. Gao, R. Jiang, Z. Dong, J. Deng, Y . Ma, and X. Song, “Spatial- temporal-decoupled masked pre-training for spatiotemporal forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00516 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Heterogeneity-informed meta-parameter learning for spatiotemporal time series forecasting,

    Z. Dong, R. Jiang, H. Gao, H. Liu, J. Deng, Q. Wen, and X. Song, “Heterogeneity-informed meta-parameter learning for spatiotemporal time series forecasting,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2024

    2024

  56. [63]

    Spatial-temporal hypergraph self-supervised learning for crime prediction,

    Z. Li, C. Huang, L. Xia, Y . Xu, and J. Pei, “Spatial-temporal hypergraph self-supervised learning for crime prediction,” in 2022 IEEE 38th international conference on data engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 2984–2996

    2022

  57. [64]

    Multi-modality spatio- temporal forecasting via self-supervised learning,

    J. Deng, R. Jiang, J. Zhang, and X. Song, “Multi-modality spatio- temporal forecasting via self-supervised learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03255, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Graph self-supervised learning: A survey,

    Y . Liu, M. Jin, S. Pan, C. Zhou, Y . Zheng, F. Xia, and S. Y . Philip, “Graph self-supervised learning: A survey,”IEEE transactions on knowl- edge and data engineering , vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 5879–5900, 2022

    2022

  59. [66]

    A tensor-based method for missing traffic data completion,

    H. Tan, G. Feng, J. Feng, W. Wang, Y .-J. Zhang, and F. Li, “A tensor-based method for missing traffic data completion,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 28, pp. 15–27, 2013

    2013

  60. [67]

    Tensor networks meet neural networks: A survey and future perspectives,

    M. Wang, Y . Pan, Z. Xu, X. Yang, G. Li, and A. Cichocki, “Tensor networks meet neural networks: A survey and future perspectives,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09019, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Compression of deep neural networks based on quantized tensor decomposition to implement on reconfigurable hardware platforms,

    A. Nekooei and S. Safari, “Compression of deep neural networks based on quantized tensor decomposition to implement on reconfigurable hardware platforms,” Neural Networks, vol. 150, pp. 350–363, 2022. 12

    2022

  62. [69]

    Compression and interpretability of deep neural networks via tucker tensor layer: From first principles to tensor valued back-propagation,

    G. G. Calvi, A. Moniri, M. Mahfouz, Q. Zhao, and D. P. Mandic, “Compression and interpretability of deep neural networks via tucker tensor layer: From first principles to tensor valued back-propagation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.06133 , 2019

    1903 arXiv

  63. [70]

    A two-stream graph convolutional neural network for dynamic traffic flow forecasting,

    Z. Li, L. Li, Y . Peng, and X. Tao, “A two-stream graph convolutional neural network for dynamic traffic flow forecasting,” in 2020 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 355–362

    2020

  64. [72]

    Spatio-temporal adaptive embedding makes vanilla transformer sota for traffic forecasting,

    H. Liu, Z. Dong, R. Jiang, J. Deng, J. Deng, Q. Chen, and X. Song, “Spatio-temporal adaptive embedding makes vanilla transformer sota for traffic forecasting,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , 2023, pp. 4125–4129

    2023

  65. [73]

    Spatial-temporal identity: A simple yet effective baseline for multivariate time series forecasting,

    Z. Shao, Z. Zhang, F. Wang, W. Wei, and Y . Xu, “Spatial-temporal identity: A simple yet effective baseline for multivariate time series forecasting,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management , 2022, pp. 4454–4458

    2022

Pith tools

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