Inductive Graph Neural Networks for Spatiotemporal Kriging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time series forecasting and spatiotemporal kriging are the two most important tasks in spatiotemporal data analysis. Recent research on graph neural networks has made substantial progress in time series forecasting, while little attention has been paid to the kriging problem---recovering signals for unsampled locations/sensors. Most existing scalable kriging methods (e.g., matrix/tensor completion) are transductive, and thus full retraining is required when we have a new sensor to interpolate. In this paper, we develop an Inductive Graph Neural Network Kriging (IGNNK) model to recover data for unsampled sensors on a network/graph structure. To generalize the effect of distance and reachability, we generate random subgraphs as samples and the corresponding adjacency matrix for each sample. By reconstructing all signals on each sample subgraph, IGNNK can effectively learn the spatial message passing mechanism. Empirical results on several real-world spatiotemporal datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our model. In addition, we also find that the learned model can be successfully transferred to the same type of kriging tasks on an unseen dataset. Our results show that: 1) GNN is an efficient and effective tool for spatial kriging; 2) inductive GNNs can be trained using dynamic adjacency matrices; 3) a trained model can be transferred to new graph structures and 4) IGNNK can be used to generate virtual sensors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".