Climate-vulnerable road networks require a paradigm shift from reactive, fix-on-failure repairs to predictive, decision-ready maintenance. This paper introduces ST-ResGAT, a novel Spatio-Temporal Residual Graph Attention Network that fuses residual graph-attention encoding with GRU temporal aggregation to forecast pavement deterioration. Engineered for resource-constrained deployment, the framework translates continuous Pavement Condition Index (PCI) forecasts directly into the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)-compliant maintenance priorities. Using a real-world inspection dataset of 750 segments in Sylhet, Bangladesh (2021-2024), ST-ResGAT significantly outperforms traditional non-spatial machine learning baselines, achieving exceptional predictive fidelity (R2 = 0.93, RMSE = 2.72). Crucially, ablation testing confirmed the mathematical necessity of modeling topological neighbor effects, proving that structural decay acts as a spatial contagion. Uniquely, we integrate GNNExplainer to unbox the model, demonstrating that its learned priorities align perfectly with established physical engineering theory. Furthermore, we quantify classification safety: achieving 85.5% exact ASTM class agreement and 100% adjacent-class containment, ensuring bounded, engineer-safe predictions. To connect model outputs to policy, we generate localized longitudinal maintenance profiles, perform climate stress-testing, and derive Pareto sustainability frontiers. ST-ResGAT therefore offers a practical, explainable, and sustainable blueprint for intelligent infrastructure management in high-risk, low-resource geological settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Graphical Abstract. Overview of ST-ResGAT development and evaluation.
Abbreviation
Full Form
AADT
Annual Average Daily Traffic
AdaBoost
Adaptive Boosting
AI
Artificial Intelligence
ANN
Artificial Neural Networks
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
CatBoost
Categorical Boosting
Table 1: Abbreviations and Acronyms
Author / Year (Model)
Application
Gaps
ST-ResGAT Contribution
Gao et al. (2024) (GraphSAGE)
GNN applied on road-network topology to model pavement deterioration using PMIS data.
Neighbour effects modeled implicitly; limited interpretability for infrastructure decisions.
Graph attention with residual projection quantifies neighbour influence and provides explainable spatial learning.
Zhou and Al-Qadi (2024) (FE-GNN surrogate)
Graph neural surrogate trained on 3D finite-element pavement response simulations.
Focuses on structural response prediction rather than network-level PCI forecasting.
Extends graph learning toward segment-level PCI prediction with temporal modeling.
Tong et al. (2025) (STGAN)
Spatio-temporal graph autoregression combining graph attention and temporal autoregressive prediction.
Feature mixing during message passing; limited interpretability for practitioners.
Residual spatial representation stabilizes feature propagation with explainable node influence.
Dang et al. (2022) (g-SDDL)
GNN + convolutional stack operating directly on raw vibration signals; stacked models for multi-damage detection without hand-engineered features.
Focused on classification/damage detection from vibration data; not designed for network-level continuous PCI forecasting or long-horizon deterioration.
Inspires raw-sensor→node feature pipeline in ST-ResGAT (use raw time-series as node inputs) and ensemble/stacking strategies for robust multi-damage segment modelling while preserving ST-ResGAT’s temporal forecasting and explainability.
Djenouri et al. (2022) (Intelligent GCN crack detection)
Image-to-graph conversion with GCN for road crack detection.
Patch-level detection; ignores network topology and temporal deterioration.
Segment-level graph representation capturing spatial propagation of pavement conditions.
Feng et al. (2023) (SCL-GCN)
Contrastive-learning enhanced GCN for LiDAR-based crack detection.
Detection-focused; lacks temporal forecasting and maintenance decision mapping.
Combines spatial GAT with temporal GRU to enable deterioration forecasting.
Table 2: Graph-based infrastructure prediction models: overview, research gaps, and how ST-ResGAT addresses them.
Figure 2: Construction of the spatio-temporal graph representation used in ST-ResGAT . Pavement inspection records collected across multiple years are first organized as node features for each road segment. THe road network topology defines adjacency relationships among segments, forming a graph structure. Each year corresponds to a graph snapshot with identical topology but updated node attributes. A temporal window of historical snapshots is then combined to create a spatio-temporal feature sequence that serves as input to the proposed ST-ResGAT model for future pavement condition prediction.
Symbol
Description
G
Graph representation of the road network (V,E)
V
Set of pavement segments (graph nodes)
E
Set of adjacency relationships between segments (edges)
N
Total number of pavement segments in the network
T
Total number of temporal observations (years)
F
Number of node features describing pavement properties
Table 3: Notations.
Figure 3: Architecture of the proposed Spatio-Temporal Residual Graph Attention Network (ST-ResGAT) for pavement condition prediction . The model receives temporal node features and the road network graph as input. Spatial dependencies among adjacent pavement segments are learned through multi-head Graph Attention Network (GAT) layer with residual connections to preserve original structural attributes. The resulting spatial embeddings across multiple time steps are aggregated using a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) to capture temporal deterioration patterns. The final spatio-temporal representation is passed through a regression head to estimate the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for each segment, which can subsequently be used for maintenance prioritization.
PCI
Severity Rank
Recommended Action
Physical Implication
86–100
1 (Very low)
Routine monitoring
Structurally sound, No immediate action
71–85
2 (Low)
Preventive
Noticeable wear, Crack sealing required
56–70
3 (Moderate)
Corrective
Significant distress, Patching required
41–55
4 (High)
Major overlay
Severe distress, Potential base failure
0–40
5 (Critical)
Full reconstruction
Structural failure, High safety hazard
Table 4: Pavement condition index (PCI) severity and recommendations according to ASTM International (2023)
Feature
Unique
Min
Max
Mean
Std
Material
2
0
1
0.74
0.44
Agg_Type
2
0
1
0.87
0.34
Flood_Risk
3
0
2
0.93
0.86
Proximity_Quarry
2
0
1
0.26
0.44
Age_Yrs
10
2
11
6.56
2.28
Traffic_AADT
2505
5004
19977
9481.24
4039.14
Table 5: Descriptive statistics of the dataset.
Property
Value
Road segments (nodes)
750
Temporal observations
3000
Edges (adjacent connections)
1498
Time span
2021–2024
Connection type
Adjacent
Table 6: Graph structure of the road network dataset.
Type
Model
MSE ( ↓ )
RMSE ( ↓ )
MAE ( ↓ )
R 2 ( ↑ )
ML
RandomForest
19.9238
4.4636
3.4266
0.8177
XGBoost
15.0562
3.8802
2.9291
0.8622
AdaBoost
16.5347
4.0663
3.1908
0.8487
CatBoost
12.1068
3.4795
2.6313
0.8892
Neural Network
MLP
12.2046
3.4935
2.6632
0.8883
Proposed model
ST-ResGAT
7.4096
2.7221
2.0886
0.9322
Table 7: Performance metrics comparison on test set
Figure 4: Actual vs. Predicted PCI scatter plot for all comparative models. The ResGAT model shows the tightest clustering along the diagonal identity line.
Figure 5: (a) REC curve, further validating the high error tolerance and robustness of the ST-ResGAT predictions, (b) Taylor Diagram illustrating the standard deviation, root mean square error (RMSE), and correlation coefficient of the models relative to the ground truth observation point.
Figure 6: Longitudinal Profile of the maintenance interventions for all 750 segements (2024), illustrating the ST-ResGAT predicted spatial degradation trends against actual conditions, overlaid with ASTM D6433 action thresholds.
Figure 7: Confusion matrix of actual vs. predicted maintenance categories.
Figure 8: (a) Local feature importance (Node 2), (b) Global feature importance.
Model Architecture
MSE ( ↓ )
RMSE ( ↓ )
MAE ( ↓ )
R 2 ( ↑ )
ST-ResGAT (Proposed)
5.4321
2.3307
2.0954
0.9388
ResGAT (Spatial Only)
8.9645
2.9941
2.7823
0.9184
ST-GAT (Non-Residual)
11.8453
3.4420
3.1265
0.8916
Vanilla GAT (Baseline)
14.2762
3.7784
3.4587
0.8642
Table 8: Influence of different architecture
Feature Set
MSE ( ↓ )
RMSE ( ↓ )
MAE ( ↓ )
R 2 ( ↑ )
Full Model (All Features)
5.4321
2.3307
2.0954
0.9388
No Structural Factors
10.7324
3.2760
3.0416
0.8879
No Traffic Load Data
7.8569
2.8030
2.6248
0.9211
No Condition History
11.2947
3.3603
3.1125
0.8963
Table 9: Impact of different feature categories
Category
Setting
MSE
RMSE
MAE
R 2
Temporal Window ( T0 )
1 Year
5.6000
2.3664
2.2164
0.9288
2 Years
5.4321
2.3307
2.1807
0.9388
Attention Heads
1
5.5500
2.3558
2.2058
0.9298
2
5.5000
2.3452
2.1952
0.9308
4
5.4321
2.3307
2.1807
0.9388
8
5.5800
2.3622
2.2122
0.9292
Table 10: Influence of various hyperparameters on ST-ResGAT
Traffic forecasting requires modeling complex temporal dynamics and the spatial dependencies imposed by road topology. Supervised graph-based models achieve strong performance, but are often trained for a particular dataset and sensor graph, making deployment to new or evolving networks costly. Prior-Data Fitted Networks (PFNs) offer a zero-shot alternative by learning in-context inference from synthetic task priors, which provide an explicit mechanism for encoding domain-specific assumptions. Existing forecasting PFNs, however, do not explicitly represent the graph-structured dependencies governing traffic dynamics. To combine graph-aware traffic modeling with zero-shot adaptation, we introduce the Graph-Aware Spatiotemporal Prior-Data Fitted Network (GAS-PFN). GAS-PFN incorporates sampled road topology into its synthetic task prior through random-walk diffusion, teaching the model to learn graph-coupled dynamics during pretraining. Its co-designed inference architecture uses two mask-conditioned passes through a shared Transformer backbone to separately model sensor-specific temporal dynamics and spatiotemporal interactions among neighboring sensors before integrating their representations for prediction. This design enables GAS-PFN to use target-network structure and context without parameter updates. Across six benchmarks at the 90-minute horizon, GAS-PFN reduces MSE by 34.0% on average relative to TimePFN, its closest PFN-based predecessor. It also reduces MSE by 27.7% on average relative to four recent industry-developed general-purpose zero-shot forecasters. In this comparison, all models receive 90 minutes of contiguous recent history, and any additional context is drawn from each dataset's chronological training split. These results indicate that aligning PFN priors and inference architectures with graph structure improves in-context learning for zero-shot traffic forecasting.
Joseph Natter, Long Vu, Yifan Zhang +3
Kennesaw State University · Missouri State University
Traffic prediction is difficult due to the complex interplay of temporal evolution, spatial interactions, and delayed spatio-temporal propagation over road networks. Existing methods either model spatial and temporal dependencies separately or employ unified spatio-temporal structures, but they often insufficiently characterize how neighboring sensors at historical timestamps influence a target node, while complex joint models may incur high computation. This paper proposes STEI-PCN, an efficient pure convolutional network based on spatio-temporal encoding and relation inference. It first builds a local causal joint spatio-temporal graph to restrict candidate interactions, then uses absolute position and relative distance encodings to infer dynamic edge weights. A single-layer graph convolution with a position-aware gated activation unit captures local joint dependencies, and temporal dilated causal convolutions complement long-range temporal patterns. A multi-view prediction module fuses raw, local propagation, and long-range temporal representations for direct multi-step forecasting. Experiments on PeMS03, PeMS04, PeMS07, PeMS08, and PeMS-Bay under multiple horizons show that STEI-PCN achieves competitive accuracy with moderate parameters and low training and inference costs. Ablation and fluctuation analyses further verify the contributions of the main components and empirically analyze the effects of the training-stage constraints under sharp speed changes. Our code is available at a GitHub link https://github.com/Jessez2/STEI-PCN.
Zhifeng Hao, Kai Hu, Juncai Zhang +2
School of Cyberspace Security, Hainan University, Haikou, China
Spatio-temporal forecasting on sensor graphs is commonly tackled with a single backbone architecture applied uniformly across all nodes, although graph regions can exhibit different dynamics. Road segments differ in functional class, structure, and traffic behavior, suggesting that node-wise expert specialization can be useful. We propose GC-MoE, a graph-conditioned mixture of experts framework that assigns each node a personalized combination of frozen forecasting experts based on graph topology and the recent traffic input window. GC-MoE combines frozen pretrained spatio-temporal GNN experts with an input-aware, spatially contextualized router while training only a lightweight routing module. We also study a bounded graph-conditioned output refinement layer as an optional extension and include node-adaptive ST-LoRA adapters only as an ablation diagnostic. Across four standard benchmarks (PEMS04, PEMS07, METR-LA, and PEMS-BAY), GC-MoE improves MAE over a zero-parameter ensemble baseline, with competitive RMSE and MAPE, while training only ~17K parameters on top of 1.5M frozen expert weights. The implementation is available at https://github.com/Ahghaffari/gc_moe.