How Much Graph Is Too Much? Graph Construction and Exposure in Spatio-Temporal Forecasting
Abstract
Spatio-temporal graph neural networks combine a node's history with information from graph neighbors. The central question is whether graph neighbors provide predictive information beyond each node's own history. Forecast accuracy depends on both the choice of neighbors and the way graph messages enter the temporal model. We study these choices as graph construction and graph exposure on U.S. state unemployment, traffic speed, and electricity demand. Our diagnostic design uses two comparisons: varying exposure while holding the domain graph fixed, and varying construction while holding late gated integration fixed. A GRU using only each node's own history and randomized graph controls help assess what the graph contributes. Under a common change forecasting protocol, the same domain graph can improve or worsen error relative to the GRU across integration designs. Late integration alone is insufficient, while adding a fusion gate yields lower mean error in all three tasks. With late gated integration fixed, a graph based on residual correlations has the lowest mean error among the tested graphs, although randomized graphs perform similarly on unemployment. The findings support evaluating graph construction and integration together, with conclusions tied to the comparisons actually performed.
Figures & tables
| Graph | Construction and purpose |
|---|---|
| Domain prior | State borders, road proximity, or grid ties. Tests the forecasting value of the domain graph. |
| Random degree matched | Random neighbors with each node’s outgoing degree preserved. Tests whether the identity of its neighbors matters. |
| Raw correlation kNN | The neighbors with the highest positive correlations in the raw series. Tests neighbor selection based on shared levels. |
| Residual correlation kNN | The neighbors selected after differencing and mean removal. Tests neighbor selection based on residual changes. |
| Rewired 100% | All domain edges rewired with graph density preserved. Tests the value of the original topology at the same density. |
| Method | Insertion stage | Frequency | Fusion gate | Update sketch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRU | None | None | No | |
| GCN GRU | Before temporal encoding | Each step | No | |
| T-GCN | Within GRU gates | Each step | No | GRU gates use |
| GRUCell GCN | After each memory update | Each step | No | , |
| Late GRU GCN | After the full window | Once | No | , |
| Late + gate | After the full window | Once | Yes | Local and graph representations combined by Eq. 3 |
| Unemployment (BLS LAUS) | Traffic (METR-LA) | Electricity (EIA-BA) | |
| What it measures | Monthly unemployment rate per U.S. state | Vehicle speed on LA freeways | Hourly electricity demand per balancing authority |
| Why a graph seems natural | Interstate labor mobility links state labor markets | Congestion propagates along road segments | Power flows across AC grid interconnections |
| Nodes | 51 U.S. states | 207 road sensors | 52 balancing authorities |
| Domain graph | 109 edges (state borders) | 1,515 edges (road proximity) | 204 edges (AC grid ties) |
| Frequency | Monthly | 5-minute | Hourly |
| Time span | Jan 2007–Dec 2024 | Mar–Jun 2012 | Jan 2019–Apr 2026 |
| Coupling | Unemp. | Traffic | Elec. |
|---|---|---|---|
| GRU (no graph) | 1.63 .40 | 7.74 .22 | 6.18 .08 |
| GCN GRU | 1.68 .90 | 7.95 .13 | 9.90 2.74 |
| T-GCN | 1.42 .73 | 8.09 .09 | 10.43 2.97 |
| GRUCell GCN | 1.85 .73 | 8.08 .08 | 10.73 2.99 |
| Late GRU GCN | 1.57 .33 | 7.96 .12 | 9.21 2.46 |
| Late + gate | 1.36 .17 | 7.64 .14 | 5.27 .07 |
| Graph / Method | Unemp. | Traffic | Elec. |
|---|---|---|---|
| GRU (no graph) | 1.63 .40 | 7.74 .22 | 6.18 .08 |
| Late gated fusion: | |||
| Domain prior | 1.36 .17 | 7.64 .14 | 5.27 .07 |
| Random (deg.-matched) | 1.27 .03 | 7.81 .05 | 5.31 .06 |
| Raw-correlation kNN | 1.25 .07 | 7.48 .17 | 5.11 .03 |
| Resid.-correlation kNN | 1.23 .09 | 6.87 .16 | 5.00 .04 |
Spatiotemporal GNNs
Spatiotemporal graph neural networks model how signals and relationships evolve across connected locations, agents, or physical systems.
See all 148 papers