DBGL: Decay-aware Bipartite Graph Learning for Irregular Medical Time Series Classification
Authors: Jian Chen, Yuzhu Hu, Xiaoyan Yuan, Yuxuan Hu, Jinfeng Xu, Yipeng Du, Wenhao Yuan, Wei Wang, Edith C. H. Ngai
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · Shenzhen MSU-BIT University, China · Department of Data Science, City University of Hong Kong, China · Engineering Research Centre of Applied Technology on Machine Translation and Artificial Intelligence, Macao Polytechnic University
Irregular Medical Time Series play a critical role in the clinical domain to better understand the patient's condition. However, inherent irregularity arising from heterogeneous sampling rates, asynchronous observations, and variable gaps poses key challenges for reliable modeling. Existing methods often distort temporal sampling irregularity and missingness patterns while failing to capture variable decay irregularity, resulting in suboptimal representations. To address these limitations, we introduce DBGL, Decay-Aware Bipartite Graph Learning for Irregular Medical Time Series. DBGL first introduces a patient-variable bipartite graph that simultaneously captures irregular sampling patterns without artificial alignment and adaptively models variable relationships for temporal sampling irregularity modeling, enhancing representation learning. To model variable decay irregularity, DBGL designs a novel node-specific temporal decay encoding mechanism that captures each variable's decay rates based on sampling interval, yielding a more accurate and faithful representation of irregular temporal dynamics. We evaluate the performance of DBGL on four publicly available datasets, and the results show that DBGL outperforms all baselines.
Figures & tables
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
HR
1.73
Temp
0.0265
Creatinine
0.1399
Lactate
13.00
ALP
14.71
PaCO2
0.0225
ALT
14.62
AST
13.89
Table 1: Representative variable decay rates ( λ ) on the P12 dataset.
Figure 1: Framework of our proposed DBGL. DBGL first models the IMTS as patient-variable bipartite graphs. Furthermore, a novel mechanism called temporal decay encoding with node-specific updates is used to obtain a robust representation for classification.
Methods
P19
Physionet
MIMIC-III
P12
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
Non-Graph
GRU-D
88.7 ± 1.2
57.6 ± 2.3
79.1 ± 6.9
42.7 ± 7.2
82.2 ± 1.8
43.3 ± 2.1
79.6 ± 0.6
41.7 ± 1.8
ODE-RNN
87.1 ± 1.0
52.6 ± 3.2
75.5 ± 2.8
33.7 ± 4.1
81.0 ± 0.6
42.3 ± 0.7
78.8 ± 0.6
37.4 ± 2.6
IP-Net
90.2 ± 0.2
58.6 ± 0.8
86.8 ± 0.6
55.8 ± 1.4
84.1 ± 0.1
47.1 ± 0.9
83.7 ± 0.3
46.3 ± 1.3
SeFT
84.0 ± 0.3
49.3 ± 0.5
75.5 ± 0.2
29.4 ± 0.9
67.9 ± 0.2
23.2 ± 0.4
78.1 ± 0.5
35.9 ± 0.8
mTAND
82.9 ± 0.9
32.3 ± 1.5
86.9 ± 1.3
52.5 ± 1.3
83.8 ± 0.3
46.6 ± 0.5
85.3 ± 0.3
49.3 ± 1.0
Table 2: Performance comparison (AUROC & AUPRC, %). The best results are in bold and the second-best results are in underlined .
Method
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
GRU-D
68.6 ± 2.3
35.8 ± 2.2
68.2 ± 2.1
34.5 ± 2.9
66.8 ± 3.3
32.7 ± 4.6
65.8 ± 4.0
31.3 ± 5.2
65.1 ± 4.1
30.4 ± 5.5
mTAND
74.9 ± 0.6
37.7 ± 0.6
74.0 ± 1.3
36.5 ± 1.5
71.4 ± 3.8
34.1 ± 3.7
70.6 ± 3.6
33.2 ± 3.7
70.1 ± 3.5
32.5 ± 3.6
DGM2 -O
76.3 ± 1.1
39.3 ± 1.5
76.1 ± 1.1
38.2 ± 1.7
74.8 ± 2.2
36.8 ± 2.6
72.0 ± 5.3
34.3 ± 5.0
70.4 ± 5.9
32.7 ± 5.7
MTGNN
71.2 ± 2.1
30.5 ± 1.5
70.3 ± 3.3
29.7 ± 2.8
68.9 ± 4.2
28.5 ± 3.3
68.1 ± 4.7
27.7 ± 3.6
67.6 ± 5.2
27.2 ± 3.8
Raindrop
73.2 ± 1.6
32.4 ± 0.9
73.0 ± 1.6
31.7 ± 1.1
72.2 ± 2.6
31.1 ± 2.7
71.5 ± 3.5
30.6 ± 3.5
70.8 ± 4.2
29.7 ± 4.3
Table 3: Performance comparison (AUROC & AUPRC, %) under different variable discard ratios on P12 dataset. The best results are highlighted in bold and the second-best results are in underlined .
Figure 2: Comparison of Positive-class Predicted Probabilities.
Method
P19
Physionet
MIMIC-III
P12
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
w/o TDE
92.9 ± 0.7
64.3 ± 2.0
88.7 ± 0.8
59.1 ± 2.2
84.6 ± 1.1
48.2 ± 2.4
87.2 ± 0.5
53.3 ± 1.9
w/o SNA
92.4 ± 0.6
65.0 ± 1.0
88.2 ± 1.1
56.7 ± 5.1
84.9 ± 0.3
49.1 ± 1.0
87.3 ± 0.6
53.3 ± 2.3
w/o HVS
92.3 ± 0.5
64.9 ± 1.2
87.1 ± 2.3
55.6 ± 3.8
84.5 ± 1.8
46.9 ± 4.1
86.9 ± 0.5
53.1 ± 0.8
w/o CB
92.8 ± 0.5
65.3 ± 1.4
88.5 ± 1.4
58.0 ± 4.8
84.9 ± 0.3
49.5 ± 0.9
87.7 ± 0.5
54.2 ± 1.7
w/o MCV
93.1 ± 0.3
66.1 ± 1.4
88.9 ± 0.5
59.5 ± 1.1
85.1 ± 0.2
50.0 ± 0.2
87.9 ± 0.2
54.6 ± 0.5
Table 4: Ablation study results (AUROC & AUPRC, %) on four clinical datasets. The best results are highlighted in bold .
Kernel
P19
Physionet
MIMIC-III
P12
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
Exp
92.9 ± 0.3
65.2 ± 0.6
88.8 ± 0.7
58.2 ± 1.9
84.9 ± 0.2
49.9 ± 0.5
87.0 ± 0.3
53.0 ± 1.0
MLP + Linear
93.2 ± 0.7
65.6 ± 0.9
89.3 ± 0.4
60.8 ± 2.2
84.8 ± 0.2
49.5 ± 1.0
87.6 ± 0.3
54.2 ± 0.5
MLP + Gaussian
93.3 ± 0.4
66.1 ± 1.6
89.3 ± 0.4
60.7 ± 2.4
84.6 ± 0.9
48.3 ± 2.5
87.7 ± 0.5
54.5 ± 1.3
MLP + Exp
93.3 ± 0.5
66.3 ± 1.4
89.1 ± 0.3
60.8 ± 2.2
85.2 ± 0.4
50.2 ± 1.0
88.1 ± 0.4
56.3 ± 1.0
Table 5: Performance comparison of different kernel types (AUROC & AUPRC, %). The best results are highlighted in bold .
Figure 3: Comparison of graph construction.
Appendix figures & tables22 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Datasets
# Samples
# Variables
# Max Length
Missing Ratio
Task
P19
38803
34
60
94.9%
Sepsis Prediction
P12
11988
36
215
88.4%
Stay Predcition
MIMIC-III
21107
16
292
65.5%
Mortality Prediction
Physionet
3997
36
215
84.9%
Mortality Prediction
Appendix
Table 6: Dataset statistics
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
ALP
14.7113
FiO2
0.2458
NISysABP
6.0698
ALT
14.6235
GCS
1.0948
Na
0.0420
AST
13.8853
Glucose
0.0493
PaCO2
0.0225
Albumin
0.0853
HCO3
0.1094
PaO2
0.0280
BUN
0.0854
HCT
0.0379
Platelets
0.0505
Bilirubin
0.8760
HR
1.7301
RespRate
4.1157
Cholesterol
7.0000
K
0.0368
SaO2
0.0408
Creatinine
0.1399
Lactate
13.0000
SysABP
0.1403
Appendix
Table 7: Variable-specific decay rates ( λ ) on the P12 dataset. Higher λ indicates faster-changing.
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
Heart rate
0.0759
Temp
0.1131
BaseExcess
14.0
SpO2
0.0822
SBP
0.0813
HCO3
0.0900
MAP
0.0820
DBP
0.0798
FiO2
0.4244
Resp
0.0818
EtCO2
0.1071
pH
0.0953
PaCO2
0.7904
SaO2
16.0
AST
16.235
BUN
16.0
Alkalinephos
15.0
Calcium
0.1144
Chloride
0.0782
Creatinine
0.1134
Bilirubin_direct
15.0
Glucose
0.1376
Lactate
3.7805
Magnesium
0.0850
Appendix
Table 8: Variable-specific decay rates ( λ ) on the P19 dataset. Higher λ indicates faster-changing.
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
ALP
16.5173
ALT
14.4846
AST
16.0
Albumin
0.1164
BUN
0.0400
Bilirubin
14.0
Cholesterol
2.0
Creatinine
0.0502
DiasABP
0.0212
FiO2
0.3273
GCS
13.5627
Glucose
0.0586
HCO3
0.0791
HCT
0.0392
HR
12.0
K
0.0429
Lactate
12.8876
MAP
0.0371
MechVent
9.4304
Mg
14.0
NIDiasABP
0.0272
NIMAP
1.0679
NISysABP
11.0
Na
0.0441
Appendix
Table 9: Variable-specific decay rates ( λ ) on the Physionet dataset. Higher λ indicates faster-changing.
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
Variable
λ
Weight
6098.3438
HR
11.8839
MAP
138.8822
DBP
4277.9697
SBP
581.1183
SpO2
2053.2156
RR
11829.0942
CRR
517.8212
Glucose
17.7346
pH
182.4216
Temperature
163.4556
FiO2
18.1914
GCS-EO
14.107
GCS-MR
26.0087
GCS-T
10.5168
GCS-VR
15.660
Appendix
Table 10: Variable-specific decay rates ( λ ) on the MIMIC-III dataset. Higher λ indicates faster-changing.
Dataset
Statistic
p-value
P12
668.4338
3.87e-118
P19
446.4491
5.97e-74
Physionet
267.0967
5.56e-38
MIMIC-III
697.995
4.97e-139
Appendix
Table 11: Kruskal–Wallis test results for variable-specific decay rates ( λ ) across datasets.
Model
Time (min/epoch)
Space (MiB)
AUPRC (%)
ODE-RNN
5.06
2582
33.7 ± 4.1
GRU-D
1.32
796
42.7 ± 7.2
SeFT
0.07
684
29.4 ± 0.9
mTAND
0.05
4658
52.5 ± 1.3
DGM 2 -O
0.06
684
50.4 ± 3.2
Raindrop
0.17
4864
41.2 ± 3.6
Appendix
Table 12: Training time and memory consumption per epoch of different models.
B
Space (MiB)
Time (s/epoch)
V
Space (MiB)
Time (s/epoch)
L
Space (MiB)
Time (s/epoch)
C
Space (MiB)
Time (s/epoch)
128
2670
56
36
3806
30
215
3806
30
512
2950
28
256
3806
30
72
5258
35
430
6294
66
1024
3064
28
512
6034
18
144
8154
48
860
11254
192
2048
3238
29
1024
10776
12
288
14208
71
1290
16316
338
4096
3806
30
2048
19700
9
432
20306
89
1720
21288
525
8172
4968
31
Appendix
Table 13: GPU memory usage and training time per epoch under different settings (B=batch size, V=number of variables, L=sequence length, C=codebook size).
Model
P19
Physionet
MIMIC-III
P12
KEDGN
0.11
0.14
0.61
0.29
DBGL
0.18
0.16
0.84
0.50
Appendix
Table 14: Inference time (seconds) of DBGL and KEDGN on four datasets.
Model
P19
Physionet
MIMIC-III
P12
KEDGN
1.76
0.93
5.92
1.61
DBGL
2.03
0.81
4.86
1.92
Appendix
Table 15: Training time per batch (seconds) of DBGL and KEDGN on four datasets.
Model
P19
PhysioNet
MIMIC-III
P12
KEDGN
10.9 ± 1.7 / 21.3 ± 3.0
15.8 ± 1.2 / 22.5 ± 2.4
15.8 ± 2.1 / 21.5 ± 4.2
15.0 ± 1.1 / 19.8 ± 1.7
DBGL
9.2 ± 1.6 / 18.2 ± 3.2
14.5 ± 1.5 / 21.1 ± 2.1
14.3 ± 1.0 / 20.0 ± 2.1
14.2 ± 1.4 / 18.9 ± 2.6
Appendix
Table 16: ECE (%) and Brier Score (%) comparison between DBGL and KEDGN across clinical datasets. Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Subset
P19
Physionet
MIMIC-III
P12
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
Subset 1
90.8 ± 0.3
61.0 ± 1.6
87.0 ± 1.5
55.1 ± 4.5
83.7 ± 0.5
46.1 ± 1.2
85.9 ± 0.6
50.8 ± 1.0
Subset 2
91.0 ± 0.2
61.6 ± 1.2
86.5 ± 2.6
54.6 ± 3.3
84.0 ± 0.3
45.8 ± 1.3
85.7 ± 0.7
50.8 ± 1.9
All
93.3 ± 0.5
66.3 ± 1.4
89.1 ± 0.3
60.8 ± 2.2
85.2 ± 0.4
50.2 ± 1.0
88.1 ± 0.4
56.3 ± 1.0
Appendix
Table 17: Performance on different training subsets across four clinical datasets (AUROC & AUPRC, %).
ICU Type
Samples
AUROC
Medical ICU
3872
93.2 ± 0.5
SIC Surgical ICU
9
98.6 ± 2.9
Appendix
Table 18: P19 dataset: performance across ICU types.
ICU Type
Coronary Care Unit
Cardiac Surgery Recovery Unit
Medical ICU
SIC Surgical ICU
Samples
219
231
419
339
AUROC
81.9 ± 1.5
83.4 ± 1.9
85.0 ± 0.5
90.4 ± 0.3
Appendix
Table 19: P12 dataset: performance across ICU types.
ICU Type
Coronary Care Unit
Cardiac Surgery Recovery Unit
Medical ICU
SIC Surgical ICU
Samples
64
91
153
91
AUROC
90.3 ± 2.4
99.4 ± 0.6
84.8 ± 0.5
85.4 ± 1.2
Appendix
Table 20: Physionet dataset: performance across ICU types.
Method
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
MIMIC-III
GRU-D
81.0 ± 0.6
42.1 ± 0.8
80.3 ± 0.9
41.7 ± 1.0
79.2 ± 1.8
41.0 ± 1.4
78.5 ± 2.1
40.4 ± 1.6
77.9 ± 2.2
39.9 ± 1.8
mTAND
81.2 ± 0.2
42.1 ± 0.8
80.4 ± 1.1
41.9 ± 1.2
79.7 ± 1.4
41.0 ± 1.7
79.3 ± 1.4
40.4 ± 2.0
78.8 ± 1.6
39.8 ± 2.3
DGM2 -O
78.8 ± 0.5
34.2 ± 0.9
78.3 ± 0.8
33.9 ± 1.1
77.6 ± 1.2
33.4 ± 1.2
77.3 ± 1.3
33.1 ± 1.2
76.8 ± 1.5
32.6 ± 1.4
MTGNN
78.8 ± 1.1
34.5 ± 1.4
78.0 ± 1.6
34.0 ± 1.3
77.1 ± 2.2
33.5 ± 1.5
76.3 ± 2.5
32.8 ± 1.9
75.6 ± 3.2
32.2 ± 2.4
Raindrop
78.2 ± 1.1
33.7 ± 0.9
77.5 ± 1.3
33.5 ± 0.9
76.4 ± 2.1
32.8 ± 1.4
76.0 ± 2.0
32.5 ± 1.4
75.7 ± 2.0
32.3 ± 1.4
Appendix
Table 21: Performance comparison (AUROC & AUPRC, %) under different discarding ratios on three clinical datasets. The best results are highlighted in bold and the second-best results are in underlined .
Figure 4: Effect of the number of EdgeSAGE layers.
Figure 5: Comparison of Positive-class Predicted Probabilities.
Dataset
P19
Physionet
MIMIC-III
P12
Utilization Rate
0.4973
0.4977
0.4982
0.4978
Appendix
Table 22: Soft codebook utilization rates across different datasets.
Figure 6: T-SNE visualization of partial variable representations on three datasets.
Model
Accuracy (%)
Precision (%)
Recall (%)
F1 score (%)
Transformer
83.5 ± 1.5
84.8 ± 1.5
86.0 ± 1.2
85.0 ± 1.3
Trans-mean
83.7 ± 2.3
84.9 ± 2.6
86.4 ± 2.1
86.4 ± 2.1
GRU-D
83.3 ± 1.6
84.6 ± 1.2
84.6 ± 1.2
84.8 ± 1.2
SeFT
67.1 ± 2.2
70.0 ± 2.4
68.2 ± 1.5
68.5 ± 1.8
mTAND
74.6 ± 4.3
74.3 ± 4.0
79.5 ± 2.8
76.8 ± 3.4
IP-Net
74.3 ± 3.8
75.6 ± 2.1
77.9 ± 2.2
76.6 ± 2.8
Appendix
Table 23: Performance comparison of different models on the dataset. Values are reported as mean ± std (%).
Irregular time series, characterized by non-uniform sampling intervals, missing observations, and variable lengths, are ubiquitous in healthcare, mobility, and environmental monitoring, yet effective and interpretable classifiers for this setting are limited. Existing approaches often rely on imputation, which can obscure the temporal structure of the data, or require complex neural architectures that are opaque and difficult to explain. In this work, we extend the Bag-Of-Receptive-Fields (BORF), a fast, deterministic, and interpretable transform for time series, to the irregular setting. Our key contribution is a time-weighted normalization scheme in which each observation is weighted proportionally to its associated time delta, making pattern extraction sensitive to the actual temporal distribution of samples rather than only their index position. This requires deriving an efficient sliding-window recurrence for the time-weighted standard deviation, preserving the linear time complexity of BORF. We benchmark the resulting method against state-of-the-art irregular time series classifiers on datasets from the PYRREGULAR repository, demonstrating competitive classification performance with the added benefit of human-interpretable explanations.
Francesco Spinnato
Department of Computer Science, University of Pisa, Italy · ISTI-CNR, Pisa, Italy
Irregular multivariate time series with missing values present significant challenges for predictive modeling in domains such as healthcare. While deep learning approaches often focus on temporal interpolation or complex architectures to handle irregularities, we propose a simpler yet effective alternative: extracting time-agnostic summary statistics to eliminate the temporal axis. Our method computes four key features per variable-mean and standard deviation of observed values, as well as the mean and variability of changes between consecutive observations to create a fixed-dimensional representation. These features are then utilized with standard classifiers, such as logistic regression and XGBoost. Evaluated on four biomedical datasets (PhysioNet Challenge 2012, 2019, PAMAP2, and MIMIC-III), our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance, surpassing recent transformer and graph-based models by 0.5-1.7% in AUROC/AUPRC and 1.1-1.7% in accuracy/F1-score, while reducing computational complexity. Ablation studies demonstrate that feature extraction-not classifier choice-drives performance gains, and our summary statistics outperform raw/imputed input in most benchmarks. In particular, we identify scenarios where missing patterns themselves encode predictive signals, as in sepsis prediction (PhysioNet, 2019), where missing indicators alone can achieve 94.2% AUROC with XGBoost, only 1.6% lower than using original raw data as input. Our results challenge the necessity of complex temporal modeling when task objectives permit time-agnostic representations, providing an efficient and interpretable solution for irregular time series classification.
Irregular time series forecasting is crucial in many domains, such as healthcare and meteorological observation. However, due to the inherent characteristics of irregular time series, including sparse observations and non-uniform sampling, accurately predicting future dynamics remains challenging. In light of these two characteristics, many existing methods aggregate irregular observations into fixed-dimensional estimated response coefficients through predefined basis functions and use these coefficients as sequence representations. Nevertheless, this modeling paradigm still suffers from two key limitations: (i) a potential non-vanishing asymptotic bias caused by ignoring the sampling density of timestamps; and (ii) the limited adaptability of predefined basis functions to diverse temporal patterns. In this study, we propose a Debiased Neural Basis-Function Network (DNBNet) to address these challenges. Its core is a debiased neural basis-function response mechanism, which corrects asymptotic bias through importance sampling while parameterizing basis functions with neural networks to adapt to diverse temporal patterns. In addition, considering the sparsity of irregular data, we design a novel multi-scale decomposition module based on average pooling, together with a mass-aware fusion mechanism, to obtain richer representations. Finally, a dual-branch decoder is employed for forecasting. Extensive experiments on multiple real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of DNBNet and its strong generalizability across diverse irregular time series scenarios. Our code can be obtained at https://github.com/hnu-vis/DNBNet.
Rongwen Li, Changjian Chen
College of Computer Science and Electronic Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, Hunan, China.