Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Foresee and Act Ahead: Task Prediction and Pre-Scheduling Enabled Efficient Robotic Warehousing

T0 review · 5 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 By predicting where warehouse orders will appear and sending robots toward those spots before tasks are published, this paper claims to cut empty running rates by more than half and mean pickup times by up to 55.8%.

desk verdict Genuine system integration with a useful prediction-plus-allocation idea, but the headline '>50% ERR reduction' is overstated and the tables contain a swap; the framework deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06425 v1 pith:MHWURNFL submitted 2024-12-09 cs.RO cs.MA

B. Cao , Z. Liu , X. Han , S. Zhou , H. Zhang , H. Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.MA
keywords roboticwarehousingmulti-robottaskallocationflowpredictionspatio-temporalgraphconvolutionpre-schedulingemptyrunningrateperiodicitydecouplingHungarianalgorithm
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 tries to establish that a robotic warehouse can run more efficiently if it predicts where future tasks will appear and sends robots toward those locations before the tasks are officially published. The proposed framework combines a spatio-temporal task-flow predictor with a hybrid allocator that treats predicted jobs as real candidate tasks. The paper reports that in a real warehouse deployed for months, this pre-scheduling cuts the empty running rate from 46.1% to 31.9%, and in large-scale simulated scenarios reduces empty running rate by 50-56% and mean pickup time by up to 55.8%, while keeping misguided travel around 1.25% or less. If this result holds, warehouse operators could serve the same demand with less robot idle travel, or raise throughput without adding robots.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two objects. TDTGCN (Temporal Decoupled Tri-Spatial Graph Convolutional Network) is the predictor: it embeds sparse sector-level task histories into a denser representation using Gaussian kernels, decomposes the time series with FFT and wavelet transforms to isolate periodic and abrupt demand components, and then runs three graph convolution operators—diffusion convolution over directed sector adjacency, hypergraph convolution over sector-road incidence, and heterogeneous convolution over typed sector relations—to produce future sector-level task counts. Hybrid-KM is the allocator: a Hungarian-method-based heuristic whose cost function mixes task urgency, robot-task distance, prediction uncertainty, and the current completion rate of the task's sector, so that predicted tasks are matched and re-matched in each prediction round.

What would settle it

Run the pre-scheduling framework in a warehouse where tasks are generated without periodic structure—for example, a Poisson arrival process with randomly chosen sectors—and compare empty running rate and pickup time against classic online allocation. If the empty-running reduction falls well below 50% or the misguided trip ratio climbs far above the reported 1.25%, the central claim is confined to predictable order flows rather than general robotic warehousing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that aggregated, sector-level warehouse task flow is predictable enough to act on, and that acting on it pays off. The paper treats task flow as a spatio-temporal tensor over warehouse sectors and predicts the next 5 to 15 half-minute frames from the past 12 frames using a network called TDTGCN, which decouples periodic demand patterns from local anomalies and extracts spatial dependencies through three fused graph structures. These forecasts enter a Hungarian-based allocator as candidate tasks, with costs that include prediction uncertainty and sector-level completion rates. The paper's headline results are reductions in empty running rate exceeding 50% (for example, from 32.04% to 14.13% in the largest simulated scenario at horizon 15) and reductions in mean pickup time up to 55.8%, with a misguided trip ratio no larger than about 1.25% in the tested scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that aggregated warehouse order flow is sufficiently periodic and predictable from the most recent 12 half-minute frames that 5 to 15-step forecasts are accurate enough to act on; if order arrivals are irregular or non-stationary, pre-positioned robots will be misled more often and the reported efficiency gains may shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robots can be pre-positioned toward sectors where work is predicted, so idle time becomes productive repositioning rather than waiting for published orders.
  • Longer prediction horizons (5, 10, 15) yield monotonically better empty running and pickup times, though with diminishing returns, giving operators a tunable trade-off against misprediction risk.
  • Because the misguided trip ratio stays low (about 1.25% or less), most pre-scheduled movement lands near real work, so the cost of acting on forecasts is small relative to the labor saved.
  • The framework is modular: the prediction network and the allocation heuristic can be swapped independently, so improvements in either component should compound rather than conflict.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported gains are measured on order flows aggregated at half-minute intervals; a natural stress test is to run the same framework under Poisson or bursty order arrivals, where the periodicity assumption is weak.
  • The paper does not decompose how much of the empty-running and pickup-time improvement comes from prediction accuracy versus the allocation heuristic; ablating Hybrid-KM with an oracle predictor and with a random predictor would isolate the source.
  • Sector-level prediction treats each sector as a unit, so a harder variant is fine-grained node-level prediction; moving from 6-29 sectors to hundreds of nodes would show whether the graph architecture scales beyond coarse aggregation.
  • The misguided-trip metric counts extra distance from mispredicted trips; a fuller cost model would also charge the opportunity cost of a robot being far from genuinely future tasks when the forecast is wrong.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a pre-scheduling framework for robotic warehousing in which a spatio-temporal task-flow predictor (TDTGCN) forecasts future task distributions and a hybrid allocator assigns both real and predicted tasks to robots. The predictor is evaluated on three real factory datasets against five baselines, and the full system is tested in large-scale simulations on three maps at horizons 5, 10, and 15, plus a months-long real-world deployment. The central claim is that the framework reduces empty running rate (ERR) and mean pickup time (MPT) by more than 50%.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper makes a useful practical contribution by coupling spatio-temporal prediction with task allocation in warehousing robotics, and the real-world deployment with a months-long trial is a notable strength. The prediction study uses real factory data and compares against several established baselines, and the allocation experiments include a classic Hungarian-method baseline. However, the significance is currently undercut by an overstated headline claim, an apparent inconsistency between two tables, missing parameter values for the allocator, and the absence of uncertainty quantification; these issues must be resolved before the quantitative conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section VII] The claim that ERR is reduced by more than 50% is not supported by the reported numbers. Recomputing from Table III, ERR reductions relative to the classic baseline are 22.1%, 35.3%, and 43.7% for ML at horizons 5, 10, and 15; 24.8%, 36.9%, and 46.7% for MM; and 34.6%, 46.7%, and 55.9% for MS. Only the MS horizon-15 cell exceeds 50%. The lifelong validation in Table IV gives a reduction from 46.1% to 31.9%, i.e., 30.8%. The abstract and Section VII should report per-cell reductions and rephrase the headline claim accordingly, for example as 'up to 55.9% in one tested map/horizon'.
  2. [Table I and Table III] Table III labels the middle map as 'MM with 20 robots and 3601 tasks' and the small map as 'MS with 30 robots and 6398 tasks', but Table I states that MM has 6398 tasks and MS has 3601 tasks. This apparent swap affects the interpretation of every row of Table III and also contradicts Section VII's description of MM as the 'smallest and simplest map'. The authors should correct the labels or explicitly explain the discrepancy.
  3. [Eq. (8) and Section IV.B] The heuristic cost matrix in Eq. (8) depends on normalization factors α, β, and σ, and the uncertainty term u(Ti) depends on an unspecified weight μ and an entropy score EnScore(·) that is not defined in the paper. No values or ranges for these parameters are reported anywhere, so the allocator is not reproducible and the sensitivity of the results to these weights cannot be assessed. Please provide the parameter settings or an ablation study.
  4. [Section V.D and Table III] Section V.D states that five scenarios are generated for each map and executed five times, but Table III reports only point estimates for ERR, MPT, and MTR, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The conclusion that the improvements are significant is therefore not statistically substantiated. Please report the distribution across runs or justify why a single value is representative.
  5. [Section IV.A and Section VII] Because the allocator acts on predicted tasks, the benefit of pre-scheduling depends on prediction accuracy. The paper reports MTR as a byproduct, but it does not quantify how prediction error degrades the ERR/MPT gains, nor does it test a regime with random or non-stationary task arrivals. The Section VII claim that longer horizons produce better results may fail if predictions become unreliable; an ablation or sensitivity analysis with respect to prediction noise is needed to make the central claim load-bearing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'compelte' should be 'complete'.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The notation in Eq. (9) is inconsistent: the summation uses t^j_{p,i} and t^j_{d,i}, while the following sentence defines t_{p,j} and t_{d,i}; please unify the subscripts.
  3. [Section VII] The text says MTR 'stays at or below about 1%', but Table III reports MTR = 1.25% for MS at horizon 15; this should be corrected.
  4. [Section II.B] The model name is written as 'Graph WaveNet' in the text and 'Graph-WaveNet' in the table; please use a consistent spelling.
  5. [Section IV.B] There is a typo in 'funtion' (should be 'function') in the sentence introducing the objective of MR-HTA.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the prediction model is trained and evaluated against external baselines on real data, and the scheduling gains are produced by acting on predicted future tasks rather than by fitting the evaluation metrics.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The task-flow predictor TDTGCN is trained with a standard MAE/RMSE/WMAPE objective on real factory datasets and compared with external baselines (STGCN, Graph WaveNet, DDSTGCN, STSGCN, D2STGNN), so the prediction results are not constructed from the downstream ERR/MPT metrics. The hybrid allocator (Section IV.B) consumes predicted tasks and their confidence only as inputs to a Hungarian-type matching cost; the reported ERR, MPT, and MTR are measured from simulated/real robot trajectories, not defined as optima of the cost function. The 'domain transfer' embedding and graph convolutions are standard spatio-temporal techniques with external citations, and no equation in the paper defines its output in terms of the evaluation target. Self-citations are present ([9], [19]) but only for metric definitions and related work; they are not load-bearing. The abstract's 'more than 50%' ERR reduction is numerically supported by only one of the nine scenario-horizon cells in Table III and is not matched by the lifelong validation in Table IV (46.1% to 31.9%, about a 30.8% reduction); additionally, Table III and Table I appear to swap the task counts for MM and MS. These are correctness/reporting concerns, not circularity. The allocator's use of model confidence as a cost signal is an internal feedback loop, but it is not a fitted input masquerading as a prediction, and MTR explicitly measures the cost of mispredictions. Overall, no circular step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central contribution rests on hand-set adjacency and cost weights, an unstated confidence-entropy trade-off, and domain assumptions about periodicity and sector-level abstraction. The learned network parameters are standard training fits and are not listed here; the constants above are the ones a reader must take on faith.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon and sigma in adjacency matrix (Eq 1) = not reported
    They set the sector adjacency graph used in all graph convolutions; no tuning procedure or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • alpha, beta, sigma in cost function (Eq 8) = not reported
    These 'normalization factors' determine the balance between distance, prediction confidence, and sector load, directly shaping all reported ERR/MPT results, yet no values are given.
  • mu in uncertainty function u(Ti) = not reported
    u(Ti) = mu*Con(Ti) - (1-mu)*EnScore blends model confidence and historical entropy; the mixing coefficient is never specified or ablated.
  • TDTGCN blocks and dilation factors = 4 blocks; dilation 1 and 2 alternating
    Chosen by hand in Section V.B with no ablation showing prediction-quality sensitivity to these architectural choices.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Warehouse task flow is sufficiently periodic and stationary for FFT-based periodicity extraction and 12-step history to generalize to 3-15 step future horizons.
    Section IV.A uses FFT to extract dominant frequencies and DWT for local patterns; this presumes recurrent order-generation patterns. If orders were chaotic, predictions would carry little information and pre-scheduling could hurt.
  • domain assumption Tasks and predicted tasks can be modeled at sector level, with each predicted task attached to a sector center.
    Section III.B defines predicted tasks via sector centers; this loses detailed spatial layout within sectors and is the basis for pre-assignment distances in Eq 8.
  • domain assumption The allocation cost is a linear combination of distance, prediction uncertainty, and sector completion rate, and the Hungarian algorithm can assign hybrid tasks optimally under this cost.
    Eq 8 assumes additive cost and one-to-one matching with no pairwise robot interactions, deadlines, or congestion terms; the cost form is not validated against alternative objectives.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian-kernel embedding and reverse reconstruction (Eqs 3-4) preserve task-flow information needed for prediction.
    The embedding is introduced as a sparse-data remedy; its information-preservation and convergence properties for warehouse task flow are not analyzed.
invented entities (1)
  • predicted task entry independent evidence
    purpose: A synthetic future task attached to a sector center, used as a candidate in the hybrid allocation so robots can move before orders are officially published.
    Its correctness can be checked after the fact against task appearance; the paper reports MTR and prediction error as falsifiable handles. It is an algorithm-internal object, not a physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Foresee and Act Ahead: Task Prediction and Pre-Scheduling Enabled Efficient Robotic Warehousing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MHWURNFL

@misc{pith2026241206425,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Foresee and Act Ahead: Task Prediction and Pre-Scheduling Enabled Efficient Robotic Warehousing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MHWURNFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06425}
}
read the original abstract

In warehousing systems, to enhance logistical efficiency amid surging demand volumes, much focus is placed on how to reasonably allocate tasks to robots. However, the robots labor is still inevitably wasted to some extent. In response to this, we propose a pre-scheduling enhanced warehousing framework that predicts task flow and acts in advance. It consists of task flow prediction and hybrid tasks allocation. For task prediction, we notice that it is possible to provide a spatio-temporal representation of task flow, so we introduce a periodicity-decoupled mechanism tailored for the generation patterns of aggregated orders, and then further extract spatial features of task distribution with novel combination of graph structures. In hybrid tasks allocation, we consider the known tasks and predicted future tasks simultaneously and optimize the allocation dynamically. In addition, we consider factors such as predicted task uncertainty and sector-level efficiency evaluation in warehousing to realize more balanced and rational allocations. We validate our task prediction model across actual datasets derived from real factories, achieving SOTA performance. Furthermore, we implement our compelte scheduling system in a real-world robotic warehouse for months of lifelong validation, demonstrating large improvements in key metrics of warehousing, such as empty running rate, by more than 50%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06425 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pre-scheduling enhanced framework for robotic warehousing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The execution process of our complete scheduling framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The predicted tasks are distributed such that they appear in each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The architecture of the TDTGCN (shown on the right), main blocks connected by residuals. It processes historical task flow data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The layout of real-world factory for validation experiments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Traffic flow prediction for road transportation networks with limited traffic data

    Afshin Abadi, Tooraj Rajabioun, and Petros A Ioannou. Traffic flow prediction for road transportation networks with limited traffic data. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 16(2):653– 662, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Optimization techniques for multi-robot task allocation problems: Review on the state-of-the-art

    Hamza Chakraa, Franc ¸ois Gu ´erin, Edouard Leclercq, and Dimitri Lefebvre. Optimization techniques for multi-robot task allocation problems: Review on the state-of-the-art. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, page 104492, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    A distributed method for dynamic multi-robot task allocation problems with critical time constraints

    Xinye Chen, Ping Zhang, Guanglong Du, and Fang Li. A distributed method for dynamic multi-robot task allocation problems with critical time constraints. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 118:31–46, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Periodicity decoupling framework for long-term series forecasting

    Tao Dai, Beiliang Wu, Peiyuan Liu, Naiqi Li, Jigang Bao, Yong Jiang, and Shu-Tao Xia. Periodicity decoupling framework for long-term series forecasting. In The 12th International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Decentral task allocation for industrial agv-systems with routing constraints

    Matthias De Ryck, Davy Pissoort, Tom Holvoet, and Eric Demeester. Decentral task allocation for industrial agv-systems with routing constraints. Journal of Manufacturing Systems , 62:135–144, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Hypergraph neural networks

    Yifan Feng, Haoxuan You, Zizhao Zhang, Rongrong Ji, and Yue Gao. Hypergraph neural networks. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 3558–3565, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Attention based spatial-temporal graph convolutional networks for traffic flow forecasting

    Shengnan Guo, Youfang Lin, Ning Feng, Chao Song, and Huaiyu Wan. Attention based spatial-temporal graph convolutional networks for traffic flow forecasting. In The AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 922–929, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Hamilton, Rex Ying, and Jure Leskovec

    William L. Hamilton, Rex Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In The 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Traffic flow learning enhanced large-scale multi-robot cooperative path planning under uncertainties

    Xingyao Han, Siyuan Chen, Xinye Xiong, Qiming Liu, Shunbo Zhou, Heng Zhang, and Zhe Liu. Traffic flow learning enhanced large-scale multi-robot cooperative path planning under uncertainties. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 16581– 16587. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    A spatiotemporal bidirectional attention-based ride-hailing demand pre- diction model: A case study in beijing during covid-19

    Ziheng Huang, Dujuan Wang, Yunqiang Yin, and Xiang Li. A spatiotemporal bidirectional attention-based ride-hailing demand pre- diction model: A case study in beijing during covid-19. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 23(12):25115– 25126, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Urban ride-hailing demand prediction with multiple spatio-temporal information fusion network

    Guangyin Jin, Yan Cui, Liang Zeng, Hanbo Tang, Yanghe Feng, and Jincai Huang. Urban ride-hailing demand prediction with multiple spatio-temporal information fusion network. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 117:102665, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

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

    Guangyin Jin, Yuxuan Liang, Yuchen Fang, Zezhi Shao, Jincai Huang, Junbo Zhang, and Yu Zheng. Spatio-temporal graph neural networks for predictive learning in urban computing: A survey. IEEE Transac- tions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , pages 1–20, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Multi-robot task allocation: A review of the state-of-the-art

    Alaa Khamis, Ahmed Hussein, and Ahmed Elmogy. Multi-robot task allocation: A review of the state-of-the-art. Cooperative Robots and Sensor Networks, pages 31–51, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    The hungarian method for the assignment problem

    Harold W Kuhn. The hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval research logistics quarterly , 2(1-2):83–97, 1955

    1955

  7. [15]

    Diffusion convolutional recurrent neural network: Data-driven traffic forecasting

    Yaguang Li, Rose Yu, Cyrus Shahabi, and Yan Liu. Diffusion convolutional recurrent neural network: Data-driven traffic forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01926 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Diffusion convolutional recurrent neural network: Data-driven traffic forecasting

    Yaguang Li, Rose Yu, Cyrus Shahabi, and Yan Liu. Diffusion convolutional recurrent neural network: Data-driven traffic forecasting. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Traffic prediction in a bike-sharing system

    Yexin Li, Yu Zheng, Huichu Zhang, and Lei Chen. Traffic prediction in a bike-sharing system. In International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems . Association for Computing Ma- chinery, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Taxi booking mobile app order demand prediction based on short-term traffic forecasting

    Yunxuan Li, Jian Lu, Lin Zhang, and Yi Zhao. Taxi booking mobile app order demand prediction based on short-term traffic forecasting. Transportation Research Record, 2634(1):57–68, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Prediction, planning, and coordination of thousand-warehousing- robot networks with motion and communication uncertainties

    Zhe Liu, Hesheng Wang, Huanshu Wei, Ming Liu, and Yun-Hui Liu. Prediction, planning, and coordination of thousand-warehousing- robot networks with motion and communication uncertainties. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , pages 1705– 1717, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Review on state-of-the-art dynamic task allocation strategies for multiple-robot systems

    N Seenu, Kuppan Chetty RM, MM Ramya, and Mukund Nilakantan Janardhanan. Review on state-of-the-art dynamic task allocation strategies for multiple-robot systems. The international journal of Robotics Research and Application , 47(6):929–942, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Zezhi Shao, Zhao Zhang, Wei Wei, Fei Wang, Yongjun Xu, Xin Cao, and Christian S. Jensen. Decoupled dynamic spatial- temporal graph neural network for traffic forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.09112, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Spatial- temporal synchronous graph convolutional networks: A new frame- work for spatial-temporal network data forecasting

    Chao Song, Youfang Lin, Shengnan Guo, and Huaiyu Wan. Spatial- temporal synchronous graph convolutional networks: A new frame- work for spatial-temporal network data forecasting. In AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence , volume 34, pages 914–921, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Dual dynamic spatial- temporal graph convolution network for traffic prediction

    Yanfeng Sun, Xiangheng Jiang, Yongli Hu, Fuqing Duan, Kan Guo, Boyue Wang, Junbin Gao, and Baocai Yin. Dual dynamic spatial- temporal graph convolution network for traffic prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 23(12):23680– 23693, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Deep learning for spatio-temporal data mining: A survey

    Senzhang Wang, Jiannong Cao, and S Yu Philip. Deep learning for spatio-temporal data mining: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 34(8):3681–3700, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Traffic flow prediction via spatial temporal graph neural network

    Xiaoyang Wang, Yao Ma, Yiqi Wang, Wei Jin, Xin Wang, Jiliang Tang, Caiyan Jia, and Jian Yu. Traffic flow prediction via spatial temporal graph neural network. In The Web Conference , pages 1082–1092, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Dynamic task allocation for multi-robot search and retrieval tasks

    Changyun Wei, Koen V Hindriks, and Catholijn M Jonker. Dynamic task allocation for multi-robot search and retrieval tasks. Applied Intelligence, 45:383–401, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Barry Brian Werger and Maja J. Mataric. Broadcast of local eligibility: Behavior-based control for strongly cooperative robot teams. In The Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 21–22, 2000

    2000

  20. [28]

    Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis

    Haixu Wu, Tengge Hu, Yong Liu, Hang Zhou, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02186 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    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. In The 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence . International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Spatio-temporal graph con- volutional networks: A deep learning framework for traffic forecasting

    Bing Yu, Haoteng Yin, and Zhanxing Zhu. Spatio-temporal graph con- volutional networks: A deep learning framework for traffic forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.04875 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Spa- tiotemporal residual graph attention network for traffic flow forecast- ing

    Qingyong Zhang, Changwu Li, Fuwen Su, and Yuanzheng Li. Spa- tiotemporal residual graph attention network for traffic flow forecast- ing. IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 10(13):11518–11532, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Heterogeneous-temporal graph convolutional networks: Make the community detection much better

    Yaping Zheng, Shiyi Chen, Xinni Zhang, Xiaofeng Zhang, Xiaofei Yang, and Di Wang. Heterogeneous-temporal graph convolutional networks: Make the community detection much better. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.10248, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ast-gcn: Attribute-augmented spatiotemporal graph convolutional network for traffic forecasting

    Jiawei Zhu, Qiongjie Wang, Chao Tao, Hanhan Deng, Ling Zhao, and Haifeng Li. Ast-gcn: Attribute-augmented spatiotemporal graph convolutional network for traffic forecasting. IEEE Access, 9:35973– 35983, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

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