Learning from Complexity: Exploring Dynamic Sample Pruning of Spatio-Temporal Training
Organizations: HKUST(GZ) · HKUST
Abstract
Spatio-temporal forecasting is fundamental to intelligent systems in transportation, climate science, and urban planning. However, training deep learning models on the massive, often redundant, datasets from these domains presents a significant computational bottleneck. Existing solutions typically focus on optimizing model architectures or optimizers, while overlooking the inherent inefficiency of the training data itself. This conventional approach of iterating over the entire static dataset each epoch wastes considerable resources on easy-to-learn or repetitive samples. In this paper, we explore a novel training-efficiency techniques, namely learning from complexity with dynamic sample pruning, ST-Prune, for spatio-temporal forecasting. Through dynamic sample pruning, we aim to intelligently identify the most informative samples based on the model's real-time learning state, thereby accelerating convergence and improving training efficiency. Extensive experiments conducted on real-world spatio-temporal datasets show that ST-Prune significantly accelerates the training speed while maintaining or even improving the model performance, and it also has scalability and universality.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Pems08 ( MAPE (%) ) | UrbanEV ( MAPE (%) ) | |||||||
| Remaining Ratio % | 10 | 30 | 50 | 70 | 10 | 30 | 50 | 70 | |
| Static | Hard Random | 13.93 ↓26.87% | 14.80 ↓34.79% | 12.07 ↓9.93% | 12.06 ↓9.84% | 35.89 ↓20.32% | 31.90 ↓6.94% | 31.52 ↓5.67% | 30.69 ↓2.88% |
| CD ( Agarwal et al., 2020 ) | 14.55 ↓32.51% | 12.25 ↓11.57% | 11.96 ↓8.93% | 11.83 ↓7.74% | 38.37 ↓28.63% | 32.20 ↓7.95% | 30.40 ↓1.91% | 31.01 ↓3.96% | |
| Herding ( Welling, 2009 ) | 15.79 ↓43.81% | 12.11 ↓10.29% | 11.58 ↓5.46% | 12.84 ↓16.94% | 34.63 ↓16.09% | 30.97 ↓3.82% | 30.94 ↓3.72% | 30.97 ↓3.82% | |
| K-Means ( Sener and Savarese, 2018 ) | 15.71 ↓43.08% | 12.24 ↓11.48% | 12.48 ↓13.66% | 11.52 ↓4.92% | 38.45 ↓28.90% | 31.85 ↓6.77% | 30.96 ↓3.79% | 30.69 ↓2.88% | |
| Least Confidence ( Coleman et al., 2019 ) | 14.31 ↓30.33% | 12.62 ↓14.94% | 11.74 ↓6.92% | 11.61 ↓5.74% | 34.23 ↓14.75% | 36.87 ↓23.60% | 30.98 ↓3.86% | 30.55 ↓2.41% | |
| Dataset | SD ( ) | GBA ( ) | GLA ( ) | |||||||||
| MAE | RMSE | MAPE (%) | TIME | MAE | RMSE | MAPE (%) | TIME | MAE | RMSE | MAPE (%) | TIME | |
| Whole Dataset | 24.13 ±1.14 | 38.03 ±1.32 | 15.77 ±0.87 | 2.07h | 27.34 ±1.04 | 42.11 ±1.19 | 24.11 ±0.48 | 13.05h | 26.26 ±0.84 | 41.12 ±1.47 | 16.06 ±0.63 | 30.53h |
| Soft Random (10%) | 30.41 | 47.96 | 20.43 | 0.52h | 33.05 | 48.71 | 39.30 | 2.97h | 29.74 | 45.98 | 20.97 | 7.25h |
| ST-Prune (10%) | 24.01 | 37.73 | 15.51 | 0.61h | 27.32 | 41.94 | 24.05 | 4.92h | 26.22 | 40.88 | 15.95 | 13.38h |
| ST-Prune (1%) | 24.76 | 38.19 | 16.51 | 0.31h | 28.16 | 42.77 | 23.64 | 2.84h | 26.95 | 41.57 | 17.62 | 7.12h |
| Improvement | ||||||||||||
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Source | Dataset | Nodes | Time Range | Frames | Sampling Rate | Data Points |
| ( Song et al., 2020 ) | PEMS08 | 170 | 07/01/2016 – 08/31/2016 | 17,856 | 5 minutes | 3.04 M |
| ( Li et al., 2025a ) | UrbanEV | 275 | 09/01/2022 – 02/28/2023 | 4344 | 1 hour | 1.19 M |
| LargeST ( Liu et al., 2024b ) | GLA | 3,834 | 01/01/2019 – 12/31/2019 | 35,040 | 15 minutes | 134.3 M |
| GBA | 2,352 | 01/01/2019 – 12/31/2019 | 35,040 | 15 minutes | 88.7 M | |
| SD | 716 | 01/01/2019 – 12/31/2019 | 35,040 | 15 minutes | 25.1 M |
| Training epochs | 100 |
| Selection epochs | 10 |
| Batch size | 256 |
| Data Fraction | 0.1 / 0.3 / 0.5 / 0.7 |
| Optimizer | SGD |
| Learning rate | 1e-3 |
| Minimum Learning rate | 1e-4 |
| Dataset | Pems08 (MAE ) | UrbanEV (MAE ) | |||||||
| Remaining Ratio % | 10 | 30 | 50 | 70 | 10 | 30 | 50 | 70 | |
| Static | Hard Random | 19.92 ↓16.90% | 18.75 ↓10.04% | 18.24 ↓7.04% | 17.92 ↓5.16% | 4.23 ↓18.82% | 3.96 ↓11.24% | 3.82 ↓7.30% | 3.76 ↓5.62% |
| CD ( Agarwal et al., 2020 ) | 19.99 ↓17.31% | 18.50 ↓8.57% | 18.12 ↓6.34% | 17.86 ↓4.81% | 4.34 ↓21.91% | 3.95 ↓10.96% | 3.81 ↓7.02% | 3.79 ↓6.46% | |
| Herding ( Welling, 2009 ) | 20.14 ↓18.19% | 18.51 ↓8.63% | 18.16 ↓6.57% | 17.84 ↓4.69% | 4.37 ↓22.75% | 3.92 ↓10.11% | 3.88 ↓8.99% | 3.74 ↓5.06% | |
| K-Means ( Sener and Savarese, 2018 ) | 20.21 ↓18.60% | 18.59 ↓9.10% | 18.28 ↓7.28% | 17.81 ↓4.52% | 4.33 ↓21.63% | 4.00 ↓12.36% | 3.81 ↓7.02% | 3.77 ↓5.90% | |
| Least Confidence ( Coleman et al., 2019 ) | 20.61 ↓20.95% | 19.48 ↓14.32% | 18.14 ↓6.46% | 18.11 ↓6.28% | 4.22 ↓18.54% | 4.47 ↓25.56% | 3.82 ↓7.30% | 3.71 ↓4.21% | |
| Dataset | Pems08 (RMSE ) | UrbanEV (RMSE ) | |||||||
| Remaining Ratio % | 10 | 30 | 50 | 70 | 10 | 30 | 50 | 70 | |
| Static | Hard Random | 31.29 ↓16.28% | 29.24 ↓8.66% | 28.72 ↓6.73% | 28.29 ↓5.13% | 8.24 ↓22.07% | 7.73 ↓14.52% | 7.35 ↓8.89% | 7.24 ↓7.26% |
| CD ( Agarwal et al., 2020 ) | 31.31 ↓16.35% | 29.04 ↓7.92% | 28.61 ↓6.32% | 28.10 ↓4.42% | 8.42 ↓24.74% | 7.69 ↓13.93% | 7.37 ↓9.19% | 7.28 ↓7.85% | |
| Herding ( Welling, 2009 ) | 31.15 ↓15.76% | 29.16 ↓8.36% | 28.48 ↓5.83% | 28.04 ↓4.20% | 8.60 ↓27.41% | 7.60 ↓12.59% | 7.52 ↓11.41% | 7.14 ↓5.78% | |
| K-Means ( Sener and Savarese, 2018 ) | 31.50 ↓17.06% | 29.23 ↓8.62% | 28.74 ↓6.80% | 28.05 ↓4.24% | 8.41 ↓24.59% | 7.78 ↓15.26% | 7.38 ↓9.33% | 7.21 ↓6.81% | |
| Least Confidence ( Coleman et al., 2019 ) | 32.36 ↓20.25% | 30.11 ↓11.89% | 28.54 ↓6.06% | 28.43 ↓5.65% | 8.29 ↓22.81% | 8.65 ↓28.15% | 7.36 ↓9.04% | 7.07 ↓4.74% | |
Data-Efficient Learning
Data-efficient learning develops methods that achieve accurate, robust models with fewer labeled examples, training samples, or interactions.
See all 236 papers