MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404529510 · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2024.3502239

Hypergraph Attention Recurrent Network for Cellular Traffic Prediction

2024· article· en· W4404529510 on OpenAlexaff
Shuqin Cao, Libing Wu, Rui Zhang, Jianfeng Lu, Dan Wu, Zhuangzhuang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceHypergraphComputer networkDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cellular traffic prediction provides significant support for the management of intelligent networks. Existing models commonly combine recurrent neural networks (RNNs) with attention mechanisms, convolutional neural networks (CNNs), or graph convolutional networks (GCNs) to capture spatial-temporal correlations of cellular traffic. However, attention mechanisms lack sensitivity to local information; CNNs ignore the interaction among distant regions with similar semantics; GCNs exhibit limitations in exploring high-order (beyond pairwise) spatial correlations. To this end, we develop a hypergraph attention recurrent network (HARN) that exploits locality, semantics, and high-order correlations for cellular traffic prediction. Specifically, we first propose a spatial trend-aware attention to perceive local trends, thus easing the mismatching problem of attention mechanisms. Then, we construct a hypergraph to characterize the interactions between distant regions with similar semantics, and leverage a hypergraph convolution network to extract high-order correlations. More importantly, to extract heterogeneous and varying spatial patterns, we further enhance the hypergraph convolution network by incorporating spatial-temporal representations. Last, extensive experiments on three real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of HARN over state-of-the-art baselines in terms of mean absolute error and root mean square error, with specific improvements of 1.83% and 5.79% on SMS (short message service) dataset, 3.05% and 11.27% on Call dataset, and 1.36% and 1.65% on Internet dataset, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service ManagementSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207