Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 44 references

Unlocking the Potential of Linear Networks for Irregular Multivariate Time Series Forecasting

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 Adaptive linear networks beat prior state-of-the-art on irregular multivariate time series forecasting, cutting error by 11% and runtime by 52%.

desk verdict AiT is a sensible combination but the core mechanism is not new and the headline margins are built on unverified baseline numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00590 v1 pith:WZOM4WHF submitted 2025-05-01 cs.LG

Chengsen Wang , Qi Qi , Jingyu Wang , Haifeng Sun , Zirui Zhuang , Jianxin Liao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords irregularmultivariatetimeseriesadaptivelinearnetworktime-awareweightstransformermissingvaluesvariablesamplingintervalsefficientforecasting
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 simple linear networks, which are cheap and effective for regular time series, can be made to work on irregular multivariate time series by replacing their static weights with weights that adapt to the actual observation times. The authors introduce AiT, a model that uses an adaptive linear module for temporal encoding and prediction, plus a transformer over variable embeddings for capturing cross-variable correlations. On four benchmark datasets, they report that AiT outperforms 20 baselines, improving average prediction accuracy by about 11% and reducing runtime by 52% relative to the previous state-of-the-art. If these results hold, AiT offers a faster and simpler alternative to ODE-based and graph-based approaches for irregular multivariate forecasting.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is ALinear, an adaptive linear layer that replaces the fixed weight matrix of a standard linear layer with a dynamically computed matrix. Given input time points and output time points, two small MLP embedders produce keys and queries, and the weight matrix is computed as softmax of the query–key dot product, followed by a weighted sum of the input. This yields a weight matrix whose shape and values adjust to the actual observation and query times, resolving the shape mismatch and numerical misalignment that static weights suffer on irregular data. When time information is absent or constant, learnable default matrices substitute for the embeddings, which lets ALinear reduce to an ordinary linear layer on regular time series.

What would settle it

Run AiT and the strongest baselines (especially T-PatchGNN) on the same four datasets under identical preprocessing, splits, and query definitions, and check whether AiT still achieves roughly 11% lower average MSE and 52% lower runtime than the reproduced baselines.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the key barrier to using linear networks on irregular time series is the static weight matrix, which cannot align with series of variable length and irregular timing. AiT addresses this with ALinear, an adaptive linear layer that generates its weights dynamically from the input and output time points via dot-product attention and softmax normalization. The temporal encoder uses ALinear to map each variable's irregular observations to a fixed-length embedding, and the predictor uses ALinear again to map that embedding to values at arbitrary future query times. Inter-variable asynchrony is handled by running a transformer over these fixed-size variable embeddings. The paper reports state-of-the-art accuracy and efficiency across four real-world datasets: PhysioNet, MIMIC, Activity, and USHCN.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the baseline numbers not reproduced by the authors, which were taken from a prior paper, were produced under exactly the same data splits, query definitions, preprocessing, and evaluation protocol used for AiT.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold, AiT provides a computationally cheap linear-architecture alternative to neural-ODE and graph-based methods for irregular multivariate forecasting, with roughly half the runtime of the previous best model.
  • Because ALinear reduces to a standard linear layer when time points are fixed, the same model can handle both regular and irregular time series without architectural changes.
  • The approach removes the need for numerical ODE integration and patch-based alignment when modeling irregular samples, potentially simplifying deployment in healthcare and climate monitoring settings.
  • The success of a linear network with time-adaptive weights suggests that avoiding static weight misalignment matters more than complex nonlinear dynamics for many IMTS forecasting tasks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue: applying ALinear as a drop-in replacement for linear layers in other architectures (such as recurrent or state-space models) to make them irregular-data-ready.
  • The paper's ablation shows the static variable embedding is critical on high-missing-rate datasets, which suggests that a learned per-variable prior complements the adaptive temporal layer; this could be tested further on datasets with extreme missingness.
  • Because the claimed accuracy gain is 11% averaged over four datasets but varies per dataset, a robustness check across more irregularity patterns (e.g., varying missing rates or sampling jitter) would clarify where the method's advantage is largest.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AiT, a model for irregular multivariate time series (IMTS) forecasting that replaces the static linear layers of iTransformer with an Adaptive Linear (ALinear) module. ALinear computes a softmax weight matrix from embeddings of input and output time points, enabling variable-length and irregularly sampled series to be handled within a linear-network framework, and a Transformer-based spatial encoder captures variable correlations in a shared latent space. The paper evaluates AiT on PhysioNet, MIMIC, Activity, and USHCN against 20 baselines, reporting an 11% average accuracy improvement and a 52% average runtime reduction relative to prior state of the art, together with ablations, hyperparameter sensitivity, varying-horizon experiments, and an RMTS generality study.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated, AiT is a practically valuable IMTS forecaster that extends the linear-network paradigm to irregular sampling. The paper's strengths are a deliberately simple architecture, a broad baseline suite, ablations that isolate each component, hyperparameter and horizon analyses, and an honest Appendix E limitation statement. However, the headline accuracy and runtime margins are conditional on the comparability of baseline numbers taken from T-PatchGNN, and no statistical significance testing is reported. The potential significance is real but currently unverified; the central claim needs additional empirical support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1.2, Table 1, Appendix B.2] The central claim of an 11% average accuracy improvement rests on baseline numbers that were not reproduced by the authors. Table 1's footnote states that results for 18 of 20 baselines are 'taken from T-PatchGNN,' and Appendix B.2 says the authors 'primarily rely on the results presented in T-PatchGNN.' If the data splits, query definitions, irregular-series preprocessing, metric computation, or hardware used in T-PatchGNN differ from those used for AiT, both headline percentages (11% accuracy, 52% runtime) are not established. Please reproduce T-PatchGNN and the strongest baselines under the exact protocol used for AiT, or release code and the exact data-partition and query definitions so that protocol equivalence can be verified.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 1; Appendix C.3] The paper reports mean and standard deviation over five seeds but no statistical significance tests. In particular, Appendix C.3 asserts that the RMTS differences are 'not a statistically significant difference' without describing any test. Because the main comparisons involve overlapping distributions (e.g., T-PatchGNN 4.98±0.08 vs. AiT 4.58±0.06 on PhysioNet MSE), the claimed superiority requires a paired significance test or at least confidence intervals or effect sizes. Please add such tests for the main tables and for the Appendix C.3 claim.
  3. [Table 2] The runtime comparison in Table 2 inherits the same protocol-equivalence problem: the baseline times are copied from T-PatchGNN and were presumably measured on different hardware or with different software configurations. The 52% average runtime reduction in the abstract depends on the comparability of these measurements. Please either reproduce the baselines in the same environment or state explicitly the hardware, software versions, and measurement protocol for every entry.
  4. [Abstract and Table 1 'Impr.' row] The headline '11% improvement' is an unweighted average of the four per-dataset Impr. values in Table 1, and each of those values appears to be an average of the MSE and MAE improvements, but this aggregation is not defined anywhere in the paper. Because the per-metric improvements are on different scales, the unweighted average is not a well-defined quantity. Please define the aggregation formula or report per-metric, per-dataset results only.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (9)] The claimed equivalence between ALinear and a static linear layer in Eq. (9) is only schematic: it omits the softmax nonlinearity and the low-rank factorization, so the '≈' should be presented as an intuition rather than a derivation.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 3.5, Eq. (6)] The symbol L denotes both the number of Transformer layers in Eq. (6) and the number of observations L_n in Section 3.1; please use different symbols to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Table 5] The column header 'MA×10−2' in Table 5 is a typo; it should read 'MAE×10−2.'
  4. [Figure 2] The label 'TemporalEncoderConcatProjection' in Figure 2 lacks a separator and is difficult to read; please use a clearer label.
  5. [Appendix B.3] The statement that code will be released 'following the release' is circular; please specify the planned release mechanism and timeline, and provide the code repository or a clear availability statement in the manuscript.
  6. [Section 3.1 and Section 4.1.3] The problem definition refers to 'queries' q_n^j but does not specify how these query time points are generated from the future observation windows; please define their construction explicitly, since this is essential for reproducing the comparison.
  7. [Appendix E] Appendix E honestly lists limitations (limited domain coverage and stationarity dependence), but the abstract does not acknowledge these constraints; please temper the abstract's broad claim of superiority or move the limitations into the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: AiT's predictions come from a trained network evaluated on held-out splits; borrowed T-PatchGNN baseline numbers are external evidence, not fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: AiT is trained by minimizing the MSE loss in Eq. (8) on training data and evaluated on held-out test splits, so the reported errors are not derivable from the model definition or from any fitted constant. ALinear (Eqs. 2-3) is an architectural component, and no equation equates the claimed 11% accuracy gain or 52% runtime gain to an input or fitted parameter. The main weakness is that 18 of 20 baseline results are 'taken from T-PatchGNN' (Table 1 note), and Appendix B.2 states that the authors 'primarily rely on the results presented in T-PatchGNN'; if the original protocols or hardware differed, the headline margins would be unverified. That is a protocol-equivalence and reproducibility gap, not a circular derivation, because T-PatchGNN is an external prior work by a different group and its numbers are measurements rather than premises that define AiT's outputs. Self-citations (Ref. [28] for RMTS datasets and Ref. [30] for related work) are auxiliary and not load-bearing. The paper's own limitations section narrows the generality claims but does not fold the conclusion back into the inputs. No step in the derivation chain reduces a prediction to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities or fitted scientific constants. The free parameters are standard architecture hyperparameters chosen by grid search. The primary assumptions are the comparability of copied baseline numbers and the adequacy of softmax length normalization, both of which the paper asserts without direct verification.

free parameters (3)
  • hidden_dim = 64
    Hidden dimension D used in all modules; selected via grid search over {16, 32, 64, 128} (Appendix B.3). It affects model capacity; the paper notes overfitting at 128 on Activity and USHCN.
  • num_heads = 4
    Number of multi-head attention heads in the Spatial Encoder; selected from {1, 2, 4, 8} via grid search.
  • num_layers = 3
    Number of stacked Transformer blocks in the Spatial Encoder; selected from {1, 2, 3, 4} via grid search.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The evaluation protocol (data splits, query definitions, irregular-series preprocessing, metrics) used to generate the copied baseline results in Tables 1 and 2 is identical to the protocol used for AiT.
    Load-bearing for the central comparison. Appendix B.1 says 'we follow the established mainstream protocols [39]' and Appendix B.2 says baseline results are 'taken from T-PatchGNN', yet no code or preprocessing details are shipped to verify protocol equivalence.
  • domain assumption Softmax normalization over variable-length input observations yields representations with consistent output expectation across varying input lengths.
    Section 3.3 normalizes attention weights over L_in positions and asserts consistency of output expectation, but provides no proof or length-based scaling beyond the softmax.
  • domain assumption The learned static variable embedding h_stat can compensate for variables with no observations at all.
    Section 3.4 introduces h_stat for variables lacking observations, but the paper never specifies how an empty x is fed to ALinear in that case, nor how h_stat is initialized or trained.
invented entities (2)
  • Learnable static variable representation h_stat
    purpose: Provides a default embedding for variables with few or no observations (Eq. 5), mitigating information loss.
    A per-variable trainable vector; no independent falsifiable handle. It is a model component whose contribution is measured only through ablation.
  • Default key and query matrices K_default and Q_default
    purpose: Substitute for time-point embeddings when time points are absent or constant, allowing ALinear to degrade to a static linear layer (Algorithm 1, lines 14-23).
    Trainable matrices of fixed shape; no external evidence. They are internal parameters that make the adaptive layer compatible with regular time series.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unlocking the Potential of Linear Networks for Irregular Multivariate Time Series Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WZOM4WHF

@misc{pith2026250500590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unlocking the Potential of Linear Networks for Irregular Multivariate Time Series Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WZOM4WHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00590}
}
read the original abstract

Time series forecasting holds significant importance across various industries, including finance, transportation, energy, healthcare, and climate. Despite the widespread use of linear networks due to their low computational cost and effectiveness in modeling temporal dependencies, most existing research has concentrated on regularly sampled and fully observed multivariate time series. However, in practice, we frequently encounter irregular multivariate time series characterized by variable sampling intervals and missing values. The inherent intra-series inconsistency and inter-series asynchrony in such data hinder effective modeling and forecasting with traditional linear networks relying on static weights. To tackle these challenges, this paper introduces a novel model named AiT. AiT utilizes an adaptive linear network capable of dynamically adjusting weights according to observation time points to address intra-series inconsistency, thereby enhancing the accuracy of temporal dependencies modeling. Furthermore, by incorporating the Transformer module on variable semantics embeddings, AiT efficiently captures variable correlations, avoiding the challenge of inter-series asynchrony. Comprehensive experiments across four benchmark datasets demonstrate the superiority of AiT, improving prediction accuracy by 11% and decreasing runtime by 52% compared to existing state-of-the-art methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00590 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The comparison of regular multivariate time series forecasting and irregular multivariate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall framework of AiT. Raw observation series from different variables are inde [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The prediction error, average training time per epoch, and total inference time of AiT and its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The prediction error of AiT with various hyperparameter configurations for irregular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The average training time per epoch and total inference time of ALinear and backbones for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The forecasting weights of ALinear and backbones for regular multivariate time series [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Satya Narayan Shukla and Benjamin M. Marlin. Multi-time attention networks for irregularly sampled time series. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Adebiyi Ariyo Ariyo, Aderemi Oluyinka Adewumi, and Charles K. Ayo. Stock price prediction using the ARIMA model. In International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [2]

    Neural flows: Efficient alternative to neural odes

    Marin Bilos, Johanna Sommer, Syama Sundar Rangapuram, Tim Januschowski, and Stephan Günnemann. Neural flows: Efficient alternative to neural odes. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    G. E. P. Box and G. M. Jenkins. Some recent advances in forecasting and control. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 17, 1968

    work page 1968

  5. [4]

    John S. Bridle. Training stochastic model recognition algorithms as networks can lead to maximum mutual information estimation of parameters. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 1989

    work page 1989

  6. [5]

    Gru-ode-bayes: Continuous modeling of sporadically-observed time series

    Edward De Brouwer, Jaak Simm, Adam Arany, and Yves Moreau. Gru-ode-bayes: Continuous modeling of sporadically-observed time series. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Spectral temporal graph neural network for multivariate time-series forecasting

    Defu Cao, Yujing Wang, Juanyong Duan, Ce Zhang, Xia Zhu, Congrui Huang, Yunhai Tong, Bixiong Xu, Jing Bai, Jie Tong, and Qi Zhang. Spectral temporal graph neural network for multivariate time-series forecasting. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Sontag, and Yan Liu

    Zhengping Che, Sanjay Purushotham, Kyunghyun Cho, David A. Sontag, and Yan Liu. Re- current neural networks for multivariate time series with missing values. arXiv, 1606.01865, 2016

    arXiv 2016

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Neural ordinary differential equations

    Tian Qi Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David Duvenaud. Neural ordinary differential equations. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018

    2018

  2. [9]

    Yuzhou Chen, Ignacio Segovia-Dominguez, Baris Coskunuzer, and Yulia R. Gel. Tamp- s2gcnets: Coupling time-aware multipersistence knowledge representation with spatio-supra graph convolutional networks for time-series forecasting. In International Conference on Learning Represe...

    2022

  3. [10]

    Deepar: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks

    Valentin Flunkert, David Salinas, and Jan Gasthaus. Deepar: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks. arXiv, 2201.00382, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Deep sparse rectifier neural networks

    Xavier Glorot, Antoine Bordes, and Yoshua Bengio. Deep sparse rectifier neural networks. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2011

    2011

  5. [12]

    Borgwardt

    Max Horn, Michael Moor, Christian Bock, Bastian Rieck, and Karsten M. Borgwardt. Set functions for time series. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Hu, elong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, elong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    Crossgnn: Confronting noisy multivariate time series via cross interaction refine- ment

    Qihe Huang, Lei Shen, Ruixin Zhang, Shouhong Ding, Binwu Wang, Zhengyang Zhou, and Yang Wang. Crossgnn: Confronting noisy multivariate time series via cross interaction refine- ment. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Pickett, and Varun Dutt

    Shruti Kaushik, Abhinav Choudhury, Pankaj Kumar Sheron, Nataraj Dasgupta, Sayee Natarajan, Larry A. Pickett, and Varun Dutt. AI in healthcare: Time-series forecasting using statistical, neural, and ensemble architectures. Frontiers Big Data, 3, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2015

    2015

  10. [17]

    Towards long-term time-series forecasting: Feature, pattern, and distribution

    Yan Li, Xinjiang Lu, Haoyi Xiong, Jian Tang, Jiantao Su, Bo Jin, and Dejing Dou. Towards long-term time-series forecasting: Feature, pattern, and distribution. In IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, 2023. 10

    2023

  11. [18]

    Time series forecasting with deep learning: A survey

    Bryan Lim and Stefan Zohren. Time series forecasting with deep learning: A survey. arXiv, 2004.13408, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  12. [19]

    itransformer: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting

    Yong Liu, Tengge Hu, Haoran Zhang, Haixu Wu, Shiyu Wang, Lintao Ma, and Mingsheng Long. itransformer: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam

    Yuqi Nie, Nam H. Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam. A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  14. [21]

    Vale, and José Silva

    Tiago Pinto, Isabel Praça, Zita A. Vale, and José Silva. Ensemble learning for electricity consumption forecasting in office buildings. Neurocomputing, 423, 2021

    2021

  15. [22]

    Latent ordinary differential equations for irregularly-sampled time series

    Yulia Rubanova, Tian Qi Chen, and David Duvenaud. Latent ordinary differential equations for irregularly-sampled time series. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019

    2019

  16. [23]

    Modeling irregular time series with continuous recurrent units

    Mona Schirmer, Mazin Eltayeb, Stefan Lessmann, and Maja Rudolph. Modeling irregular time series with continuous recurrent units. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Satya Narayan Shukla and Benjamin M. Marlin. A survey on principles, models and methods for learning from irregularly sampled time series: From discretization to attention and invariance. arXiv, 2012.00168, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    An analysis of linear time series forecasting models

    William Toner and Luke Nicholas Darlow. An analysis of linear time series forecasting models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Rethinking the power of timestamps for robust time series forecasting: A global-local fusion perspective

    Chengsen Wang, Qi Qi, Jingyu Wang, Haifeng Sun, Zirui Zhuang, Jinming Wu, and Jianxin Liao. Rethinking the power of timestamps for robust time series forecasting: A global-local fusion perspective. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    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. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Not only pairwise relationships: Fine-grained relational modeling for multivariate time series forecasting

    Jinming Wu, Qi Qi, Jingyu Wang, Haifeng Sun, Zhikang Wu, Zirui Zhuang, and Jianxin Liao. Not only pairwise relationships: Fine-grained relational modeling for multivariate time series forecasting. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Graph wavenet for deep spatial-temporal graph modeling

    Zonghan Wu, Shirui Pan, Guodong Long, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. Graph wavenet for deep spatial-temporal graph modeling. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Connecting the dots: Multivariate time series forecasting with graph neural networks

    Zonghan Wu, Shirui Pan, Guodong Long, Jing Jiang, Xiaojun Chang, and Chengqi Zhang. Connecting the dots: Multivariate time series forecasting with graph neural networks. In ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Grafiti: Graphs for forecasting irregularly sampled time series

    Vijaya Krishna Yalavarthi, Kiran Madhusudhanan, Randolf Scholz, Nourhan Ahmed, Johannes Burchert, Shayan Jawed, Stefan Born, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme. Grafiti: Graphs for forecasting irregularly sampled time series. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Fouriergnn: Rethinking multivariate time series forecasting from a pure graph perspective

    Kun Yi, Qi Zhang, Wei Fan, Hui He, Liang Hu, Pengyang Wang, Ning An, Longbing Cao, and Zhendong Niu. Fouriergnn: Rethinking multivariate time series forecasting from a pure graph perspective. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Is channel independent strategy optimal for time series forecasting? arXiv, 2310.17658, 2023

    Peiwen Yuan and Changsheng Zhu. Is channel independent strategy optimal for time series forecasting? arXiv, 2310.17658, 2023. 11

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Are transformers effective for time series forecasting? In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023

    Ailing Zeng, Muxi Chen, Lei Zhang, and Qiang Xu. Are transformers effective for time series forecasting? In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Warpformer: A multi-scale modeling approach for irregular clinical time series

    Jiawen Zhang, Shun Zheng, Wei Cao, Jiang Bian, and Jia Li. Warpformer: A multi-scale modeling approach for irregular clinical time series. In ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Unleash the power of pre-trained language models for irregularly sampled time series

    Weijia Zhang, Chenlong Yin, Hao Liu, and Hui Xiong. Unleash the power of pre-trained language models for irregularly sampled time series. arXiv, 2408.08328, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Irregular multivari- ate time series forecasting: A transformable patching graph neural networks approach

    Weijia Zhang, Chenlong Yin, Hao Liu, Xiaofang Zhou, and Hui Xiong. Irregular multivari- ate time series forecasting: A transformable patching graph neural networks approach. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Irregular traffic time series forecasting based on asynchronous spatio-temporal graph convolutional networks

    Weijia Zhang, Le Zhang, Jindong Han, Hao Liu, Yanjie Fu, Jingbo Zhou, Yu Mei, and Hui Xiong. Irregular traffic time series forecasting based on asynchronous spatio-temporal graph convolutional networks. In ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Min...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Graph-guided network for irregularly sampled multivariate time series

    Xiang Zhang, Marko Zeman, Theodoros Tsiligkaridis, and Marinka Zitnik. Graph-guided network for irregularly sampled multivariate time series. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Crossformer: Transformer utilizing cross-dimension dependency for multivariate time series forecasting

    Yunhao Zhang and Junchi Yan. Crossformer: Transformer utilizing cross-dimension dependency for multivariate time series forecasting. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Rethinking channel dependence for multivariate time series forecasting: Learning from leading indicators

    Lifan Zhao and Yanyan Shen. Rethinking channel dependence for multivariate time series forecasting: Learning from leading indicators. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Forecasting fine-grained air quality based on big data

    Yu Zheng, Xiuwen Yi, Ming Li, Ruiyuan Li, Zhangqing Shan, Eric Chang, and Tianrui Li. Forecasting fine-grained air quality based on big data. In ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2015. 12 A Detailed Analysis of ALinear Algorithm 1 ALin...

    2015

Pith tools

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