Multivariate time series forecasting is widely applied in fields such as transportation, energy, and finance. However, the data commonly suffers from issues of multi-scale characteristics, weak correlations, and noise interference, which limit the predictive performance of existing models. This paper proposes a dual-stream sparse Mixer prediction framework that extracts global trends and local dynamic features from sequences in both the frequency and time domains, respectively. It employs a sparsity mechanism to filter out invalid information, thereby enhancing the accuracy of cross-variable dependency modeling. Experimental results demonstrate that this method achieves leading performance on multiple real-world scenario datasets, validating its effectiveness and generality. The code is available at https://github.com/SDMixer/SDMixer
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Framework of SDMixer.
Dataset
Dim
Dataset Size
Forecastability*
Information
cov(Trend)cov(Season)
ETTm1
7
(34465,11521,11521)
0.46
Temperature
0.073992
ETTm2
7
(34465,11521,11521)
0.55
Temperature
0.039469
ETTh1
7
(8545,2881,2881)
0.38
Temperature
0.490909
ETTh2
7
(8545,2881,2881)
0.45
Temperature
0.136543
Electricity
321
(18317,2633,5261)
0.77
Electricity
11.836820
Exchange
8
(5312,760,1516)
0.42
Economy
0.001885
Table 1: Dataset detailed descriptions. The dataset size is organized in (Train, Validation, Test). Forecastability is calculated by one minus the entropy of Fourier decomposition of time series [ 4 ] ; a larger value indicates better predictability.
SDMixer
WPMixer
TimeMixer
iTransformer
PatchTST
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Weather
96
0.168
0.221
0.163
0.205
0.163
0.209
0.174
0.214
0.186
0.227
192
0.210
0.256
0.208
0.245
0.208
0.250
0.221
0.254
0.234
0.265
336
0.256
0.291
0.263
0.287
0.259
0.287
0.278
0.296
0.284
0.301
Table 2: Comparative experimental results with typical baselines. The best performance is in bold.
Dataset
SDMixer
TimesNet
DLinear
SCINet
FEDformer
Autoformer
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Weather
0.238
0.276
0.259
0.287
0.265
0.315
0.292
0.363
0.309
0.360
0.338
0.382
Electricity
0.167
0.262
0.192
0.304
0.225
0.319
0.268
0.365
0.214
0.327
0.227
0.338
Exchange
0.355
0.399
0.416
0.443
0.354
0.414
0.750
0.626
0.519
0.429
0.613
0.539
ETTh1
0.426
0.438
0.458
0.450
0.461
0.457
0.747
0.647
0.498
0.484
0.496
0.487
ETTh2
0.343
0.391
0.414
0.427
0.563
0.519
0.954
0.723
0.437
0.449
0.450
0.459
Table 3: Comparative experimental results with more baselines. For each dataset, the result is the average over the four prediction lengths (96, 192, 336, 720). The best performance is in bold.
Model Variant
Metric
Datasets
AVG
ECL
ETTh1
ETTh2
ETTm1
ETTm2
Exchange
Weather
No Cross
MSE
0.170
0.436
0.364
0.381
0.278
0.375
0.279
0.326
MAE
0.271
0.448
0.421
0.384
0.359
0.429
0.338
0.379
No Time
MSE
0.178
0.424
0.344
0.356
0.268
0.408
0.249
0.318
MAE
0.279
0.440
0.395
0.383
0.329
0.439
0.287
0.365
No Freq
MSE
0.193
0.469
0.367
0.374
0.258
0.355
0.239
0.322
Table 4: Ablation experiment results. For each dataset, the result is the average over the four prediction lengths (96, 192, 336, 720). The best performance is in bold.
Figure 2: Performance of ablation models on different datasets (errors for prediction length 96).
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Data Science, College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States