Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Rethinking Traffic Flow Forecasting: From Transition to Generatation

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that traffic flow should be modeled as two separate processes—periodic generation and network transition—and that a 93K-parameter model built on this split matches a 513K-parameter transition-only baseline.

desk verdict Efficient traffic forecasting model with a clean period-lookup idea; worth refereeing, but the missing PEMS07 long-term table and a blank key equation undercut the headline claims as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14248 v1 pith:PLMVDMWL submitted 2025-04-19 cs.AI cs.LG

Li Shijiao , Ma Zhipeng , He Huajun , Chen Haiyue This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords Spatio-temporaldataminingTrafficflowpredictionTime-frequencydomainanalysisMulti-periodicitySimilarityattentiongenerationtransitionTransformer
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 argues that traffic flow prediction has been framed too narrowly: standard models treat the next flow as a transition from the current state, but the total citywide flow also rises and falls with daily, weekly, and other cycles—a process the paper calls flow generation. To capture generation, the paper proposes a multi-branch similarity-attention module that looks up past windows at several significant periods and uses what actually followed similar windows as the forecast. To capture transition, it keeps stacked spatial and temporal self-attention plus graph and temporal convolutions. On PEMS04, PEMS07, and PEMS08, the resulting model EMBSFormer beats eleven baselines on 12-step and 36-step forecasts, and reports that a 93K-parameter variant matches the 513K-parameter GMAN model. If true, the paper's claim is that decomposing flow into generation and transition is both more accurate and much cheaper than scaling a single transition model.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the multi-period similarity attention inside the flow generation block. The model splits each of K historical period segments (for example, 8, 12, 24, and 168 hours) into an input portion and a pseudo-future portion, uses the recent m-step embedding as the query, the historical input embeddings as keys, and the pseudo-future embeddings as values, and computes a softmax attention weight so the forecast is a weighted average of what actually happened after similar past windows. Temporal convolutions refine the looked-up values, and sum-normalization across the multiple period branches keeps the parameter count nearly flat as periods are added. The complementary flow transition block provides the other half: spatial and temporal self-attention capture global dependencies while a Chebyshev graph convolution and time convolution capture local adjacency and temporal features, with cross-attention fusing both branches.

What would settle it

Test the model on traffic data from a period with broken periodicity—a long holiday, a major incident, or a lockdown—and compare its error with a pure transition model; if disabling the similarity lookup does not raise error during that window, the generation module is not carrying the claimed benefit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that traffic flow at a node is the sum of two structurally different processes: generation, which is the periodic appearance and disappearance of flow driven by daily, weekly, and longer rhythms, and transition, which is the propagation of flow across the road network through spatial and temporal dependencies. It claims that prior models, which rely on Markovian assumptions and use one architecture for both processes, are therefore suboptimal. The proposed EMBSFormer models generation with a parallel multi-period similarity-attention module that looks up the most similar historical windows and reads off the pseudo-future values that followed them, and models transition with stacked spatial self-attention, temporal self-attention, and graph convolution, fused by cross-attention. The paper reports that this split outperforms all baselines on short- and long-term forecasting across three real-world datasets, with the advantage growing as the forecasting horizon lengthens, and that a 93K-parameter variant matches a 513K-parameter transition-only model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that traffic is locally periodic: if the most recent stretch of traffic resembles a stretch from a past day or week, the next stretch will resemble what followed that past stretch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A correct decomposition means accuracy gains do not have to come from larger models; the same or better performance is available from a compact architecture that separates periodic generation from network transition.
  • Long-horizon forecasts should degrade more gracefully than transition-only models, because the similarity lookup does not weaken as the forecast length grows.
  • The parameter-efficiency result implies the approach is a practical fit for real-time traffic control, where inference must run repeatedly across large sensor networks.
  • The same architecture should extend to other periodic multivariate time series by swapping the transition branch for a domain-appropriate encoder, which the authors name as future work.
  • Adding more sampled periods appears to monotonically improve accuracy, suggesting that the fixed set of periods does not exhaust the benefit of the generation branch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A first testable extension is to make the period set adaptive: because the ablation shows error falling as more periods (8, 12, 24, and 168 hours) are added, a learned or data-driven period selection could push accuracy further than the fixed set.
  • The generation/transition split might transfer to other networked periodic signals such as electricity load, ride-hailing demand, or pedestrian flow; if it works there, the paper's real contribution is a general decomposition rather than a traffic-specific architecture.
  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is deployment economics: at 93K parameters, the model could be retrained or fine-tuned per city frequently, something large transformers cannot afford.
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

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes EMBSFormer, a traffic flow forecasting model that explicitly separates traffic flow patterns into a node-level flow generation process (modeled through multi-period similarity attention) and a graph-level flow transition process (modeled through spatio-temporal self-attention, graph convolution, and temporal convolution). The model is evaluated on PEMS04, PEMS07, and PEMS08 for 12-step predictions and on PEMS04 and PEMS08 for 36-step predictions, with claims of improved MAE, RMSE, and MAPE over eleven baselines, plus a parameter-efficiency claim (93K parameters, about 18% of GMAN's 513K, with competitive accuracy). Ablation and efficiency studies are included on PEMS08. The conceptual separation of generation and transition is interesting, and the reported efficiency numbers are attractive, but the current evidence is incomplete: the core similarity-attention equation is missing, the long-term comparison omits PEMS07, the baseline sets differ between short- and long-term tables, and no uncertainty estimates are reported.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper would make a useful practical contribution: a compact model that matches or outperforms much larger attention-based baselines on standard traffic benchmarks, while also offering a clean conceptual distinction between multi-period node-level generation and graph-level transition. The parameter-efficiency result is striking and worth verifying, and the similarity-lookup mechanism is a plausible alternative to heavy encoder-decoder attention. However, the current manuscript does not yet support the headline claim of consistent superiority across 'three datasets on both tasks': PEMS07 long-term results are absent, the main equation of the proposed similarity attention is missing, and the reported margins over strong baselines are small without repeated-run statistics. The idea is promising and the issues are local to the experimental reporting and presentation, so the work is repairable within the scope of a major revision.

major comments (6)
  1. [§4.4.2, Eq. (13)] The core equation of the paper is missing: after Eq. (12), the text reads 'A_e_S =' followed by an empty numbered equation (13), and Eq. (14) then uses Q_e_S, K_e_S, V_e_S, which are never defined in the generation block (Eqs. (10)-(12) introduce Q_M, K_M, V_M, and Eq. (12) introduces Q_e_S and V_e_S without explanation). Because this similarity attention is the paper's main novelty and the basis for the multi-period lookup, the mechanism cannot be reproduced or checked as written. Please supply the missing equation, align the notation throughout Section 4.4.2, define all matrices and their dimensionalities, and correct Eq. (14), which as printed appears to be missing a transpose and a matrix-multiplication structure.
  2. [Table 3; Abstract/§1/§6] The abstract, introduction, and conclusion all state that EMBSFormer is evaluated on three real-world datasets on both short-term and long-term tasks, but Table 3 contains only PEMS04-36 and PEMS08-36; PEMS07-36 is absent, even though PEMS07 is the largest dataset in the study. This leaves one of the six dataset-task combinations without evidence, creating a selective-reporting risk for the headline claim. Please either add PEMS07-36 results to Table 3 or explicitly restrict all long-term claims to PEMS04 and PEMS08 throughout the text.
  3. [Table 3] The long-term comparison in Table 3 is not matched to the short-term comparison in Table 2: ASTGNN, STGNCDE, and ASTGCN appear in Table 2 but not in Table 3, so the statement that EMBSFormer 'outperforms baselines' on long-term tasks is based on a strict subset of the baselines. Additionally, the reported GMAN RMSE of 52.86 on PEMS04-36 looks inconsistent with its MAE of 22.12 and with the other models' RMSE values in the same column, and should be checked. Please include the same baseline set in both tables or justify any exclusions.
  4. [Tables 2–3, §5.4] All results are reported as single numbers with no multiple seeds, standard deviations, or significance tests. The margins over the second-best model are small in several cells (e.g., PEMS04-12 MAE 18.42 vs. ASTGNN 18.68; PEMS08-12 MAE 14.29 vs. ASTGNN 14.78), so it is unclear whether the claimed improvements are within run-to-run noise. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three independent runs for the main comparisons, or otherwise provide evidence that the differences are stable.
  5. [§4.4.2, §5.5] The similarity-attention mechanism uses the pseudo-future continuations of historical periods as the value matrix, so predictions are weighted combinations of what happened after historically similar windows. This implicitly assumes a form of local stationarity or periodicity: if the recent m steps resemble a historical m-step segment, then the next n steps will resemble that segment's following n steps. This assumption is not stated or validated, and the paper's claim that the module 'dynamically expands significant cycles' is not supported by any description of how significant periods are selected; Section 5.5 simply tries fixed periods 8, 12, 24, and 168. Please state the assumption explicitly, describe the period-selection procedure, and provide sensitivity analysis for the period set on more than the PEMS08 short-term task.
  6. [§5.5, Fig. 6] The ablation study is reported only for PEMS08 on the short-term task. Since the paper claims that both the flow-generation and flow-transition branches are needed across datasets and both prediction horizons, the current ablation does not establish the contribution of each module on PEMS04, PEMS07, or the long-term setting. Please extend the ablation to at least the remaining datasets and to the 36-step task, or restrict the ablation-based conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and throughout] The title contains a typo ('Generatation'), and there are numerous other typographical errors (e.g., 'sovel', 'transtion', 'interatcion', 'Recnt', 'Pems08') that should be corrected in a careful language pass.
  2. [Fig. 5] Both the MAE and RMSE panels in Figure 5 are labeled '(a)'; they should be labeled '(a)' and '(b)'.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The notation 'E = [E_R, E_P]' is unclear because E_R and E_P have different temporal lengths (m vs. m+n); please specify along which dimension they are concatenated and how the different lengths are handled in subsequent layers.
  4. [Eq. (15)] The 'Norm' operation and the phrase 'sum normalization instead of weighted summation' are not defined; please clarify exactly what normalization is applied and why it improves the highlighting of similar historical features.
  5. [Table 4] The conference attribution for ASTGNN is inconsistent: Table 2 lists it as 'TKDE'21' but Table 4 lists 'ASTGNN (AAAI'19)'; please correct the citation/venue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: EMBSFormer is trained and evaluated on held-out data; the generation/transition decomposition is an architectural framing, not an input-output equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a supervised learning pipeline: historical flows are split chronologically into training, validation, and test sets (Section 5.3.1), hyperparameters are selected on the validation set, and all metrics are computed on held-out test data (Section 5.3.3). No equation in the paper defines the prediction target in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The flow generation block uses historical 'pseudo-future' vectors as values in similarity attention, but those vectors are taken from past periods (e.g., the same time window on previous days or weeks, Section 4.2) and are not the test-time labels; the attention weights themselves are learned through trainable projections Q, K, V and optimized with MSE on true future values. This is an architectural inductive bias, not a circular reduction. The multi-period frequencies (8, 12, 24, 168 hours) are standard daily/weekly periodicities supported by Fourier analysis in Figure 1, and the ablation study in Section 5.5 tests their contribution rather than assuming it. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: the references are to prior external work, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result by these authors is invoked to force the design. The missing PEMS07 long-term results in Table 3 are a completeness/selective-reporting concern, but absence of evidence is not circularity. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim is supported by a trained model, so no theoretical derivation is required. The main data-dependent choices are the period set and the standard hyperparameters, both selected on validation data. The structural risk is the period-stationarity assumption in the similarity attention. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • significant period set = 8, 12, 24, 168 hours
    The number and spacing of sampled periods for the generation module are chosen from Fourier analysis of the training data, not derived. The ablation study shows performance depends on this choice.
  • model hyperparameters = Chebyshev order K in {2,3}, hidden dim in {32,64,128}, embedding dim in {32,64}, transition block count set to 2
    Selected on the validation set; the reported results depend on these choices, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Historical segments sampled at fixed intervals (day, week) are representative of future conditions, so the future after a similar past segment can serve as a prediction template.
    The similarity attention mechanism in Sec. 4.4.2 weights pseudo-future values from past periods by similarity of their preceding inputs, assuming the same recent pattern is followed by the same future pattern.
  • standard math The Chebyshev polynomial approximation of graph convolution is valid for the normalized Laplacian of the sensor graph.
    Used in Eqs. (7)-(8) to define the GCN component of the transition branch.
  • standard math Mean squared error is the appropriate training objective for traffic flow regression.
    Stated in Eq. (17) without discussion of alternatives or robustness to outliers.
  • domain assumption A single global set of significant periods applies to all nodes.
    The paper claims node-level generation, but the period set (8, 12, 24, 168) is global to the entire dataset.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rethinking Traffic Flow Forecasting: From Transition to Generatation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PLMVDMWL

@misc{pith2026250414248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rethinking Traffic Flow Forecasting: From Transition to Generatation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PLMVDMWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14248}
}
read the original abstract

Traffic flow prediction plays an important role in Intelligent Transportation Systems in traffic management and urban planning. There have been extensive successful works in this area. However, these approaches focus only on modelling the flow transition and ignore the flow generation process, which manifests itself in two ways: (i) The models are based on Markovian assumptions, ignoring the multi-periodicity of the flow generation in nodes. (ii) The same structure is designed to encode both the transition and generation processes, ignoring the differences between them. To address these problems, we propose an Effective Multi-Branch Similarity Transformer for Traffic Flow Prediction, namely EMBSFormer. Through data analysis, we find that the factors affecting traffic flow include node-level traffic generation and graph-level traffic transition, which describe the multi-periodicity and interaction pattern of nodes, respectively. Specifically, to capture traffic generation patterns, we propose a similarity analysis module that supports multi-branch encoding to dynamically expand significant cycles. For traffic transition, we employ a temporal and spatial self-attention mechanism to maintain global node interactions, and use GNN and time conv to model local node interactions, respectively. Model performance is evaluated on three real-world datasets on both long-term and short-term prediction tasks. Experimental results show that EMBSFormer outperforms baselines on both tasks. Moreover, compared to models based on flow transition modelling (e.g. GMAN, 513k), the variant of EMBSFormer(93K) only uses 18\% of the parameters, achieving the same performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14248 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Generation and Transition of Traffic Flow. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of EMBSFormer. 4/20/2023 Thur. 4/13/2023 Thur. 4/25/2023 Tue. 4/26/2023 Wed. 4/27/2023 Thur. ? period 2 period 1 period 3 period k current Now Past 7 8 9 7:00-9:00 time slots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-period Data Preparation. 𝐸 𝑇 𝑅 = 𝑆𝑜 𝑓 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥  𝑄 𝑇𝐾 𝑇 √ 𝑑𝑡  𝑉 𝑇 (5) Spatio-temporal neighbourhood convolution. In the traffic flow prediction, We introduce a graph convolutional neural network with Chebyshev polynomials as the core to repre￾sent the topological relationship of different points in the traffic network, facilitating the model in capturing the adjacency flow relationships between locations during t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Multi-period lookup Attention. 4.4.2 Flow Generation Block. To tackle the muti-periodic patterns in historical traffic flow, we introduce a long-short-term history similarity attention mechanism specifically for the long-term his￾torical flow. This mechanism assess…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Long-term Prediction Performance with Increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation Study. 2016-07-01 2016-07-02 Time 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Traffic flow Sensor 60, 12 steps Ground Truth Prediction 2016-07-01 2016-07-02 Time 0 50 100 150 200 250 Traffic flow Sensor 128, 12 steps Ground Truth Prediction 2016-07-01 2016-07-02 Time 100 2…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Case Study. (2) EMBSFormer-w/o Period. It excludes the Period module and focuses solely on the analysis of recent attention. (3) EMBSFormer￾Period (24). It samples only long-term historical information 24 hours on the similarity analysis module. (4) EMBSFormer-Period (…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Parameters and Model Performance. exhibits the shortest inference time and training time. We also take into account and compare params with them, shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lei Bai, Lina Yao, Can Li, Xianzhi Wang, and Can Wang. 2020. Adaptive graph convolutional recurrent network for traffic forecasting. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 17804–17815

    2020

  2. [2]

    Hannah Bast, Daniel Delling, Andrew Goldberg, Matthias Müller-Hannemann, Thomas Pajor, Peter Sanders, Dorothea Wagner, and Renato F Werneck. 2016. Route planning in transportation networks. Algorithm engineering: Selected results and surveys (2016), 19–80

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Jeongwhan Choi, Hwangyong Choi, Jeehyun Hwang, and Noseong Park. 2022. Graph neural controlled differential equations for traffic forecasting. In Proceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 36. 6367–6374

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Harris Drucker, Christopher J Burges, Linda Kaufman, Alex Smola, and Vladimir Vapnik. 1996. Support vector regression machines.Advances in neural information processing systems 9 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Etash Guha and Vihan Lakshman. 2024. On the Diminishing Returns of Width for Continual Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06398 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

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

    2019

  8. [8]

    Shengnan Guo, Youfang Lin, Letian Gong, Chenyu Wang, Zeyu Zhou, Zekai Shen, Yiheng Huang, and Huaiyu Wan. 2023. Self-Supervised Spatial-Temporal Bottleneck Attentive Network for Efficient Long-term Traffic Forecasting. In2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 1585–1596

    work page 2023

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Shengnan Guo, Youfang Lin, Shijie Li, Zhaoming Chen, and Huaiyu Wan. 2019. Deep spatial–temporal 3D convolutional neural networks for traffic data fore- casting. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 20, 10 (2019), 3913–3926

    2019

  2. [10]

    Shengnan Guo, Youfang Lin, Huaiyu Wan, Xiucheng Li, and Gao Cong. 2021. Learning dynamics and heterogeneity of spatial-temporal graph data for traffic forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 34, 11 (2021), 5415–5428

    2021

  3. [11]

    Juyong Jiang, Binqing Wu, Ling Chen, Kai Zhang, and Sunghun Kim. 2023. Enhancing the Robustness via Adversarial Learning and Joint Spatial-Temporal Embeddings in Traffic Forecasting. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Managemen...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Shiyong Lan, Yitong Ma, Weikang Huang, Wenwu Wang, Hongyu Yang, and Pyang Li. 2022. Dstagnn: Dynamic spatial-temporal aware graph neural network for traffic flow forecasting. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 11906–11917

    2022

  5. [13]

    Boyu Li, Ting Guo, Yang Wang, Amir H Gandomi, and Fang Chen. 2021. Adaptive graph co-attention networks for traffic forecasting. In Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . Springer, 263–276

    2021

  6. [14]

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

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. 2021. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer us- ing shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. 10012–10022

    2021

  8. [16]

    Zheng Lu, Chen Zhou, Jing Wu, Hao Jiang, and Songyue Cui. 2016. Integrating Granger Causality and Vector Auto-Regression for Traffic Prediction of Large- Scale WLANs. KSII Transactions on Internet & Information Systems 10 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Markos Papageorgiou, Christina Diakaki, Vaya Dinopoulou, Apostolos Kotsialos, and Yibing Wang. 2003. Review of road traffic control strategies. Proc. IEEE 91, 12 (2003), 2043–2067

    2003

  10. [18]

    Xingjian Shi, Zhourong Chen, Hao Wang, Dit-Yan Yeung, Wai-Kin Wong, and Wang-chun Woo. 2015. Convolutional LSTM network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting. Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Chao Song, Youfang Lin, Shengnan Guo, and Huaiyu Wan. 2020. 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. 914–921

    2020

  12. [20]

    Neil C Thompson, Kristjan Greenewald, Keeheon Lee, and Gabriel F Manso

  13. [21]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Zonghan Wu, Shirui Pan, Guodong Long, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. 2019. Graph wavenet for deep spatial-temporal graph modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00121 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mingxing Xu, Wenrui Dai, Chunmiao Liu, Xing Gao, Weiyao Lin, Guo-Jun Qi, and Hongkai Xiong. 2020. Spatial-temporal transformer networks for traffic flow forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.02908 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Haoyang Yan, Xiaolei Ma, and Ziyuan Pu. 2021. Learning dynamic and hier- archical traffic spatiotemporal features with transformer. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23, 11 (2021), 22386–22399

    2021

  17. [25]

    Huaxiu Yao, Fei Wu, Jintao Ke, Xianfeng Tang, Yitian Jia, Siyu Lu, Pinghua Gong, Jieping Ye, and Zhenhui Li. 2018. Deep multi-view spatial-temporal network for taxi demand prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 32. Conference’17, Jul...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Anthony GO Yeh. 1999. Urban planning and GIS. Geographical information systems 2, 877-888 (1999), 1

    1999

  19. [27]

    Junbo Zhang, Yu Zheng, and Dekang Qi. 2017. Deep spatio-temporal residual net- works for citywide crowd flows prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 31

    2017

  20. [28]

    Yunhao Zhang and Junchi Yan. 2022. Crossformer: Transformer utilizing cross- dimension dependency for multivariate time series forecasting. In The eleventh international conference on learning representations

    2022

  21. [29]

    Chuanpan Zheng, Xiaoliang Fan, Cheng Wang, and Jianzhong Qi. 2020. Gman: A graph multi-attention network for traffic prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 34. 1234–1241

    2020

  22. [2021]

    Ieee Spectrum 58, 10 (2021), 50–55

    Deep learning’s diminishing returns: The cost of improvement is becoming unsustainable. Ieee Spectrum 58, 10 (2021), 50–55

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.