Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This paper critically examines the reliability of standard benchmark datasets used to evaluate Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) for spatiotemporal forecasting, revealing structural biases in widely adopted sets like PEMS-BAY that artificially inflate GNN performance. By demonstrating that simple linear models often outperform current baselines on these specific datasets, the authors argue for a shift toward more rigorous statistical evaluation and diverse data sources to ensure fair method comparison. The work provides essential toolsets for identifying spatial-temporal correlations, offering a pathway to develop more robust hybrid models that are not skewed by dataset artifacts.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

A Critical Audit of Spatiotemporal Forecasting Benchmark Datasets and Baselines

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2608.20980v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Graph neural networks (GNNs) are routinely employed for short-range forecasting on multivariate time series with a spatial graph structure. Despite the availability of many alternative datasets, method innovations within this domain are predominantly assessed against a rather limited set of benchmark datasets, most notably Chickenpox, PedalMe, WikiMaths, METR-LA, and PEMS-BAY. The evaluation protocols contain baselines spanning from historical averages to classical machine learning approaches. These baselines often show competitive performance compared to GNNs. In the present work, we take a step back and analyse the benchmark datasets via classical time series methods to uncover why spatially-unaware linear models pose a stronger competitor than previously reported, casting further doubt on the discriminative reliability of the aforementioned widely adopted datasets. Our statistical analysis provides a toolset for identifying significant spatial and temporal correlations, while revealing a structural bias introduced by first-order differenced datasets. We therefore recommend reducing the over-reliance on such datasets for method comparison, and instead advocate for more rigorous statistical evaluation. By applying the results of our analysis to a simple hybrid model, we show how our methodology can lead to novel ways of developing GNN models

Abstract:Graph neural networks (GNNs) are routinely employed for short-range forecasting on multivariate time series with a spatial graph structure. Despite the availability of many alternative datasets, method innovations within this domain are predominantly assessed against a rather limited set of benchmark datasets, most notably Chickenpox, PedalMe, WikiMaths, METR-LA, and PEMS-BAY. The evaluation protocols contain baselines spanning from historical averages to classical machine learning approaches. These baselines often show competitive performance compared to GNNs. In the present work, we take a step back and analyse the benchmark datasets via classical time series methods to uncover why spatially-unaware linear models pose a stronger competitor than previously reported, casting further doubt on the discriminative reliability of the aforementioned widely adopted datasets. Our statistical analysis provides a toolset for identifying significant spatial and temporal correlations, while revealing a structural bias introduced by first-order differenced datasets. We therefore recommend reducing the over-reliance on such datasets for method comparison, and instead advocate for more rigorous statistical evaluation. By applying the results of our analysis to a simple hybrid model, we show how our methodology can lead to novel ways of developing GNN models

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)

arXiv:2608.20980 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2608.20980v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.20980 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 284 words

Related coverage