Cited by 134Time Series Analysis and ForecastingAdvanced Graph Neural NetworksTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques

Fully-Connected Spatial-Temporal Graph for Multivariate Time-Series Data

Open access
Wang, Yucheng, Xu, Yuecong, Yang, Jianfei, Wu, Min, Li, Xiaoli, Xie, Lihua, Chen, Zhenghua·2024·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Multivariate Time-Series (MTS) data is crucial in various application fields. With its sequential and multi-source (multiple sensors) properties, MTS data inherently exhibits Spatial-Temporal (ST) dependencies, involving temporal correlations between timestamps and spatial correlations between sensors in each timestamp. To effectively leverage this information, Graph Neural Network-based methods (GNNs) have been widely adopted. However, existing approaches separately capture spatial dependency and temporal dependency and fail to capture the correlations between Different sEnsors at Different Timestamps (DEDT). Overlooking such correlations hinders the comprehensive modelling of ST dependencies within MTS data, thus restricting existing GNNs from learning effective representations. To address this limitation, we propose a novel method called Fully-Connected Spatial-Temporal Graph Neural Network (FC-STGNN), including two key components namely FC graph construction and FC graph convolution. For graph construction, we design a decay graph to connect sensors across all timestamps based on their temporal distances, enabling us to fully model the ST dependencies by considering the correlations between DEDT. Further, we devise FC graph convolution with a moving-pooling GNN layer to effectively capture the ST dependencies for learning effective representations. Extensive experiments show the effectiveness of FC-STGNN on multiple MTS datasets compared to SOTA methods. The code is available at https://github.com/Frank-Wang-oss/FCSTGNN.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v38i14.29500

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of the TVG algorithm to map the MTS dataset into graphs eliminates the need to censor or truncate some parts of the MTS relationships, to rely on simplified metrics such as cosine similarity, or to patch the MTS.

    “In particular, the use of the TVG algorithm to map the MTS dataset into graphs eliminates the need to censor or truncate some parts of the MTS relationships, as is the case with the constrained correlation approach used in [102]; to rely on simplified metrics such as cosine similarity, as is the case in [101]; or to patch the MTS, as is the case in [96].”

    From TVGeAN: Tensor Visibility Graph-Enhanced Attention Network for Versatile Multivariant Time Series Learning Tasks (2024) · cites this paper as [96]

    The FC Graph Construction section says the method segments each MTS sample into patches and uses a truncation operation to calculate their number. It also calls the dot product a simple metric for sensor similarity. These statements contradict the claim that the method avoids patching and simplified similarity metrics; the cited paper describes its method as FC-STGNN, not TVG. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Saxena, A.; Goebel, K.; Simon, D.; and Eklund, N. 2008. Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine run-to- failure simulation. In 2008 International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management, 1-9.
  2. Yu, B.; Yin, H.; and Zhu, Z. 2018. Spatio-temporal graph convolutional networks: A deep learning framework for traf- fic forecasting. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, Y., Xu, Y., Yang, J., Wu, M., Li, X., Xie, L., & Chen, Z.
Affiliations
  • Agency for Science, Technology and Research (SG)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2024-03-24
Volume
38
Issue
14
Pages
15715-15724
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W4393159722
Cited by
134
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 22
FWCI
50.25
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation (AISG2-RP-2021-027)
  • Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A20H6b0151, C210112046)
  • National Research Foundation Singapore (AISG2-RP-2021-027)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Time Series Analysis and Forecasting
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Traffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Keywords
multivariate time series, spatio-temporal graph neural networks, sensor correlation, temporal correlation, graph convolution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review