Rethinking Patch Based Multivariate Time Series Forecasting with Semantic Structured Partitioning

arXiv:2608.199662026-08-21

别再机械切分时间序列,按语义把它切成有意义的块

在预测涉及多个相互关联变量的时间序列时,现有做法通常先把序列切成一段段的补丁,但固定长度切分、多尺度切分、可伸缩切分这三类方法都存在各自的问题,难以贴合数据里真正的趋势、周期或突变边界。这篇论文提出SCPaT框架,让模型根据数据局部变化程度自动决定切分长度,再用一种可微分的传递熵方法构建这些片段之间的有向依赖图,并按重要性把不同语义块分配给不同的专家网络处理。在12个真实数据集上的实验中,SCPaT的预测误差低于多个代表性方法。

他们做了什么

论文系统分析了固定长度、多尺度、可伸缩三类切分策略,指出它们都缺乏显式建模语义结构的机制
SCPaT通过测量局部方差自适应生成语义单元:变化平稳的区域切得长,变化剧烈的区域切得短
用可微分的传递熵近似方法估计语义单元之间的有向依赖关系,构建动态语义图,再聚类形成更高层次的语义块
引入重要性感知的路由机制,把不同特性的语义块分配给不同专家网络处理,并采用Top-P路由让实际激活的专家数量根据置信度自动调整,而非固定数量
在长期和短期预测基准上,SCPaT在四个ETT数据集上相较PatchTST、TimesNet、HDMixer平均误差分别降低4.6%、7.1%、4.1%,在存在缺失值和噪声干扰的情况下也表现出相对更稳定的性能

Figure 1: Comparison of four patch based schemes: fixed partitioning, multi-scale partitioning, extendable partitioning, and the proposed semantic structured partitioning.

Table 1: Summary of the 12 datasets used in our forecasting experiments, including the prediction horizons, data dimensionality, sampling frequency, and total number of time points.
Task Type	Dataset	Prediction Horizons	Time Point	Dimension	Frequency
Long-term Forecasting	ETTh1	{96,192,336,720}	17420	7	Hourly
ETTh2	{96,192,336,720}	17420	7	Hourly
ETTm1	{96,192,336,720}	69680	7	15 min
ETTm2	{96,192,336,720}	69680	7	15 min
Weather	{96,192,336,720}	52603	21	10 min
Traffic	{96,192,336,720}	17451	862	Hourly
Electricity	{96,192,336,720}	26211	321	Hourly
Solar	{96,192,336,720}	52179	137	10 min
Short-term Forecasting	PEMS03	{12,24,48}	26208	358	5 min
PEMS04	{12,24,48}	16992	307	5 min
PEMS07	{12,24,48}	28224	883	5 min
PEMS08	{12,24,48}	17856	170	5 min

Figure 2: SCPaT architecture consists of: (a) Semantic Vector Encoder, which encodes time series into semantic units; (b) Transfer Entropy Graph Constructor, quantifies directed dependencies and constructs a dynamic semantic graph; and (c) Importance aware Routing, allocates customized processing strategies to different semantic blocks for effective modeling.

Table 2: Multivariate long-term forecasting results over four prediction horizons, H∈{96,192,336,720}, with the input length fixed at L=96. The best and second-best results are marked in bold red and blue underline, respectively.
Models	SCPaT	MSPatch	DUET	iTransformer	MSGNet	HDMixer	PatchTST	TimesNet	CrossFormer	LSTM
	(Ours)	(2025)	(2025)	(2024)	(2024)	(2024)	(2023)	(2023)	(2023)	(1997)
Metric	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE
ETTh1	96	0.370	0.392	0.372	0.395	0.384	0.402	0.386	0.405	0.390	0.411	0.386	0.401	0.414	0.419	0.384	0.402	0.423	0.448
192	0.418	0.422	0.428	0.426	0.437	0.429	0.441	0.436	0.442	0.442	0.441	0.430	0.460	0.445	0.446	0.439	0.471	0.474	1.217
336	0.452	0.440	0.484	0.452	0.477	0.453	0.465	0.445	0.487	0.458	0.458	0.443	0.501	0.466	0.491	0.469	0.570	0.546	1.259
720	0.449	0.458	0.480	0.473	0.486	0.475	0.503	0.491	0.494	0.488	0.512	0.484	0.500	0.488	0.521	0.500	0.653	0.621	1.271
ETTh2	96	0.288	0.338	0.292	0.344	0.298	0.351	0.297	0.349	0.328	0.371	0.293	0.338	0.302	0.348	0.340	0.374	0.745	0.584
192	0.373	0.396	0.383	0.402	0.374	0.394	0.380	0.400	0.402	0.414	0.379	0.396	0.388	0.400	0.402	0.414	0.877	0.656	3.312
336	0.408	0.427	0.417	0.431	0.417	0.431	0.428	0.432	0.435	0.443	0.426	0.444	0.426	0.433	0.452	0.452	1.043	0.731	3.291
720	0.430	0.444	0.422	0.446	0.427	0.442	0.430	0.445	0.441	0.444	0.429	0.447	0.431	0.446	0.462	0.468	1.104	0.763	3.257
ETTm1	96	0.320	0.360	0.324	0.363	0.329	0.361	0.334	0.368	0.323	0.366	0.340	0.368	0.329	0.367	0.338	0.375	0.404	0.426
192	0.362	0.383	0.367	0.385	0.364	0.385	0.377	0.391	0.376	0.397	0.382	0.386	0.367	0.385	0.374	0.387	0.450	0.451	1.113
336	0.389	0.402	0.390	0.404	0.396	0.408	0.426	0.420	0.417	0.422	0.403	0.411	0.399	0.410	0.410	0.411	0.532	0.515	1.267
720	0.456	0.436	0.454	0.437	0.469	0.437	0.491	0.459	0.481	0.458	0.473	0.439	0.454	0.439	0.478	0.450	0.666	0.589	1.324
ETTm2	96	0.173	0.258	0.175	0.260	0.179	0.262	0.180	0.264	0.181	0.262	0.183	0.266	0.181	0.259	0.187	0.267	0.287	0.366
192	0.238	0.300	0.239	0.302	0.240	0.300	0.250	0.309	0.247	0.307	0.247	0.307	0.241	0.302	0.249	0.309	0.414	0.492	2.249
336	0.297	0.339	0.297	0.340	0.302	0.341	0.311	0.348	0.312	0.346	0.305	0.345	0.305	0.343	0.321	0.351	0.597	0.543	2.568
720	0.394	0.394	0.396	0.397	0.399	0.397	0.412	0.407	0.414	0.403	0.406	0.400	0.402	0.406	0.408	0.403	1.730	1.042	2.720
Weather	96	0.163	0.208	0.165	0.209	0.167	0.209	0.174	0.214	0.169	0.212	0.174	0.223	0.177	0.218	0.172	0.220	0.171	0.230
192	0.209	0.250	0.211	0.252	0.212	0.254	0.221	0.254	0.218	0.255	0.225	0.264	0.225	0.259	0.219	0.261	0.226	0.277	0.416
336	0.266	0.292	0.268	0.294	0.269	0.297	0.278	0.296	0.272	0.299	0.277	0.301	0.278	0.297	0.280	0.306	0.272	0.335	0.455
720	0.345	0.349	0.342	0.345	0.348	0.347	0.358	0.349	0.350	0.348	0.349	0.347	0.354	0.348	0.365	0.359	0.398	0.418	0.535
Traffic	96	0.393	0.247	0.460	0.295	0.395	0.256	0.395	0.268	0.605	0.344	0.529	0.353	0.544	0.359	0.593	0.321	0.522	0.290
192	0.425	0.259	0.466	0.300	0.420	0.266	0.417	0.276	0.613	0.359	0.535	0.361	0.540	0.354	0.617	0.336	0.530	0.293	0.847
336	0.454	0.270	0.484	0.306	0.458	0.272	0.461	0.283	0.642	0.376	0.541	0.361	0.551	0.358	0.629	0.336	0.558	0.305	0.853
720	0.489	0.291	0.510	0.323	0.499	0.288	0.497	0.302	0.702	0.401	0.591	0.389	0.586	0.375	0.640	0.350	0.589	0.328	1.500
Electricity	96	0.139	0.233	0.158	0.257	0.148	0.236	0.149	0.240	0.165	0.274	0.163	0.275	0.195	0.285	0.168	0.272	0.219	0.314
192	0.155	0.248	0.171	0.268	0.164	0.249	0.162	0.253	0.184	0.292	0.186	0.281	0.195	0.285	0.184	0.289	0.231	0.322	0.442
336	0.168	0.263	0.184	0.283	0.178	0.265	0.178	0.269	0.195	0.302	0.199	0.295	0.215	0.305	0.198	0.300	0.246	0.337	0.439
720	0.200	0.293	0.223	0.308	0.206	0.303	0.225	0.317	0.231	0.332	0.231	0.321	0.256	0.337	0.220	0.320	0.280	0.363	0.980

Figure 3: Sensitivity analysis of the hyperparameters α and Top-P on ETTm1, ETTh1, ETTh2, and Weather, with both the input length and prediction horizon fixed at 96.

Table 3: Multivariate short-term forecasting results over three prediction horizons, H∈{12,24,48}, with the input length fixed at L=96. The best and second-best results are marked in bold red and blue underline, respectively.
Models	SCPaT	MSPatch	DUET	iTransformer	MSGNet	HDMixer	TimesNet	PatchTST	CrossFormer
	(Ours)	(2025)	(2025)	(2024)	(2024)	(2024)	(2023)	(2023)	(2023)
Metric	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE
PEMS03	12	0.066	0.169	0.074	0.179	0.071	0.176	0.071	0.174	0.083	0.197	0.076	0.184	0.085	0.192	0.099	0.216	0.090	0.203
24	0.086	0.195	0.097	0.200	0.089	0.197	0.093	0.201	0.097	0.217	0.095	0.210	0.118	0.223	0.142	0.259	0.121	0.240
48	0.122	0.235	0.131	0.244	0.118	0.229	0.125	0.236	0.135	0.241	0.122	0.245	0.155	0.260	0.211	0.319	0.202	0.317
PEMS04	12	0.073	0.176	0.075	0.185	0.076	0.179	0.078	0.183	0.082	0.187	0.084	0.188	0.087	0.195	0.105	0.224	0.098	0.218
24	0.091	0.199	0.093	0.201	0.097	0.203	0.095	0.205	0.128	0.241	0.097	0.210	0.103	0.215	0.153	0.257	0.131	0.256
48	0.124	0.237	0.134	0.244	0.119	0.239	0.126	0.240	0.192	0.315	0.134	0.253	0.136	0.250	0.229	0.339	0.205	0.326
PEMS07	12	0.058	0.153	0.066	0.162	0.059	0.166	0.067	0.165	0.087	0.191	0.074	0.182	0.082	0.181	0.095	0.207	0.094	0.200
24	0.074	0.174	0.083	0.189	0.079	0.183	0.088	0.190	0.135	0.241	0.089	0.197	0.101	0.204	0.150	0.262	0.139	0.247
48	0.102	0.207	0.112	0.217	0.106	0.211	0.110	0.215	0.297	0.351	0.124	0.217	0.134	0.238	0.253	0.340	0.311	0.369
PEMS08	12	0.070	0.173	0.079	0.175	0.077	0.177	0.079	0.182	0.159	0.208	0.098	0.193	0.112	0.212	0.168	0.232	0.165	0.214
24	0.085	0.187	0.094	0.211	0.098	0.201	0.115	0.219	0.210	0.251	0.108	0.223	0.141	0.238	0.224	0.281	0.215	0.260
48	0.112	0.220	0.150	0.232	0.139	0.227	0.186	0.235	0.311	0.358	0.167	0.247	0.198	0.283	0.321	0.354	0.315	0.335
1st Count	9	11	0	0	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Figure 4: Performance degradation under different Gaussian noise levels on ETTh1 and Weather with both the input length and prediction horizon fixed at 96.

Table 4: Average routing probability distribution across experts, with both the input length and prediction horizon fixed at 96.
Dataset	Expert 1	Expert 2	Expert 3
ETTh1	0.62	0.21	0.17
ETTm1	0.51	0.25	0.24
Weather	0.81	0.11	0.08

Figure 5: Performance comparison under different look-back window lengths on ETTm1, ETTh1, Electricity, and Weather, with L∈{48,96,192,336,720} and the prediction horizon fixed at 96.

Table 5: Robustness analysis on the ETTm2 and ETTh1 datasets under different missing rates, with the input length fixed at L=96 and the prediction horizon fixed at H=96. The best results are highlighted in bold.
Missing Rate	ETTm2	ETTh1
SCPaT (Ours)	iTransformer	PatchTST	SCPaT (Ours)	iTransformer	PatchTST
MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE
0.00	0.173	0.258	0.180	0.264	0.181	0.259	0.370	0.392	0.386	0.405	0.414	0.419
0.05	0.213	0.297	0.249	0.441	0.252	0.327	0.379	0.401	0.404	0.413	0.436	0.428
0.10	0.248	0.326	0.295	0.472	0.328	0.376	0.390	0.412	0.433	0.424	0.455	0.441
0.15	0.287	0.354	0.379	0.559	0.411	0.423	0.404	0.424	0.462	0.432	0.467	0.460
0.20	0.332	0.385	0.433	0.567	0.502	0.471	0.419	0.438	0.478	0.448	0.482	0.483
0.25	0.388	0.419	0.506	0.574	0.601	0.520	0.437	0.454	0.487	0.473	0.498	0.503
0.30	0.452	0.456	0.596	0.580	0.709	0.569	0.459	0.471	0.500	0.498	0.511	0.527

Figure 6: Heatmaps of the learned directed adjacency matrix Afinal on the ETTh1 and Weather datasets.

Table 6: Ablation results of the SCPaT components on ETTm2, Weather, and Traffic over prediction horizons H∈{96,192,336,720}, with the input length fixed at L=96. The best and second-best results are marked in bold red and blue underline, respectively.
Dataset	ETTm2	Weather	Traffic
Prediction Length	96	192	336	720	96	192	336	720	96	192	336	720
SCPaT	MSE	0.173	0.238	0.297	0.394	0.163	0.209	0.266	0.345	0.393	0.425	0.454	0.489
MAE	0.258	0.300	0.339	0.394	0.208	0.250	0.292	0.349	0.247	0.259	0.270	0.291
w/o SV Encoder	MSE	0.196	0.259	0.317	0.412	0.204	0.248	0.302	0.373	0.414	0.448	0.478	0.510
MAE	0.278	0.318	0.354	0.408	0.254	0.287	0.323	0.367	0.274	0.281	0.294	0.316
w/o IAR	MSE	0.178	0.245	0.302	0.400	0.167	0.216	0.273	0.353	0.397	0.431	0.459	0.495
MAE	0.264	0.309	0.347	0.402	0.214	0.257	0.299	0.354	0.253	0.267	0.274	0.297
w/o TE Graph	MSE	0.180	0.247	0.309	0.407	0.171	0.214	0.277	0.356	0.401	0.436	0.466	0.498
MAE	0.270	0.311	0.343	0.413	0.221	0.262	0.301	0.355	0.249	0.264	0.277	0.301

Figure 8: Model efficiency comparison of different methods on ETTm2 and Weather.

为什么重要

电力、天气、交通流量等多变量时间序列预测直接关系到能源调度和基础设施运营等实际工作,一种能更好贴合数据真实结构、并在缺失和噪声环境下保持稳定的切分与建模方法,对实际部署有参考价值。论文专门做了缺失值和高斯噪声下的鲁棒性测试,让这些改进的意义超出了干净基准数据的范畴。

本文术语

补丁(patch) · 从长时间序列中切出的一小段,作为模型的输入单元
传递熵(transfer entropy) · 衡量一个变量的历史信息在多大程度上有助于预测另一个变量未来值的指标,用于捕捉有方向性的影响关系
路由(routing) · 把不同输入分配给不同的专门子模型(专家)进行处理的机制
Top-P路由 · 不固定选择专家的数量,而是选到累积概率达到某个阈值为止
模块度(modularity) · 衡量一个图被划分成若干簇之后,这种划分是否合理的指标

论文原文摘要（英文）

Multivariate time series forecasting (MTSF) is a fundamental task in many real world applications. Existing patch based forecasting methods generally fall into three categories: fixed partitioning, multi-scale partitioning, and extendable partitioning. Fixed partitioning often breaks meaningful temporal boundaries, multi-scale partitioning may introduce redundant representations across scales, and extendable partitioning improves flexibility but still lacks an explicit mechanism for organizing semantic structure and modeling interactions among heterogeneous temporal patterns. To address these limitations, we propose SCPaT, a Transformer based framework built on semantic structured partitioning. SCPaT first decomposes input sequences into semantically consistent units through adaptive semantic unit generation, then constructs a dynamic semantic graph to model directed dependencies among these units and organize them into higher order semantic blocks. Based on these structured representations, an importance aware routing mechanism adaptively dispatches different semantic blocks to different experts for customized modeling. Extensive experiments on 12 real world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of SCPaT.

作者 · Jiazhe Wang, Zhiquan Huang, Linjing Xue, Ming Liu, Meiwen Li, Ruijuan Zheng

在 arXiv 阅读

METAL LAB 最新报道

图片来源： Jiazhe Wang et al., arXiv:2608.19966, arxiv-nonexclusive

Rethinking Patch Based Multivariate Time Series Forecasting with Semantic Structured Partitioning

他们做了什么

为什么重要

本文术语

最新论文

METAL LAB 最新报道