mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Hybrid Inductive-Transductive Network for Traffic Flow Imputation on Unsampled Locations

arXiv 2512.17984 ↗First posted 19 Dec 2025cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Accurately imputing traffic flow at unsensed locations is difficult: loop detectors provide precise but sparse measurements, speed from probe vehicles is widely available yet only weakly correlated with flow, and nearby links often exhibit strong heterophily in the scale of traffic flow (e.g., ramps vs. mainline), which breaks standard GNN assumptions. We propose HINT, a Hybrid INductive-Transductive Network, and an INDU-TRANSDUCTIVE training strategy that treats speed as a transductive, network-wide signal while learning flow inductively to generalize to unseen locations. HINT couples (i) an inductive spatial transformer that learns similarity-driven, long-range interactions from node features with (ii) a diffusion GCN conditioned by FiLM on rich static context (OSM-derived attributes and traffic simulation), and (iii) a node-wise calibration layer that corrects scale biases per segment. Training uses masked reconstruction with epoch-wise node sampling, hard-node mining to emphasize difficult sensors, and noise injection on visible flows to prevent identity mapping, while graph structure is built from driving distances. Across three real-world datasets, MOW (Antwerp, Belgium), UTD19-Torino, and UTD19-Essen, HINT consistently surpasses state-of-the-art inductive baselines. Relative to KITS, HINT reduces MAE on MOW by ≈42% with basic simulation and ≈50% with calibrated simulation; on Torino by ≈22%, and on Essen by ≈12%. Even without simulation, HINT remains superior on MOW and Torino, while simulation is crucial on Essen. These results show that combining inductive flow imputation with transductive speed, traffic simulations and external geospatial improves accuracy for the task described above.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Dec 2025.

Builds on

10 of 26 references.

References · 10

  1. 2017Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphscited by 6,320
  2. 2017FiLM: Visual Reasoning with a General Conditioning Layercited by 2,333
  3. 2022Graph Neural Networks for Graphs with Heterophily: A Surveycited by 175
  4. 2023A Survey on Graph Neural Networks for Time Series: Forecasting, Classification, Imputation, and Anomaly Detectioncited by 145
  5. 2020Inductive Graph Neural Networks for Spatiotemporal Krigingcited by 91
  6. 2019UrbanFM: Inferring Fine-Grained Urban Flowscited by 31
  7. 2023Kriging Convolutional Networkscited by 31
  8. 2023INCREASE: Inductive Graph Representation Learning for Spatio-Temporal Krigingcited by 27
  9. 2023KITS: Inductive Spatio-Temporal Kriging with Increment Training Strategycited by 19
  10. 2021Decoupling Long- and Short-Term Patterns in Spatiotemporal Inferencecited by 15

Built on by

Not cited yet.