Rethinking Patch Based Multivariate Time Series Forecasting with Semantic Structured Partitioning

arXiv:2608.199662026-08-21

A new way to slice time series into meaningful chunks instead of arbitrary equal-length pieces

Forecasting time series with many interacting variables usually starts by cutting the sequence into patches, but existing ways of doing this either use fixed-length cuts, multiple scales, or flexible-length cuts, each with its own weaknesses. This paper introduces SCPaT, which lets the model decide patch boundaries based on how much the data is actually changing, builds a directed graph of how these patches influence each other, and routes different types of patches to specialized sub-models. Across 12 real-world datasets, SCPaT produced lower prediction errors than representative prior methods.

METAL MEDIA explanatory visual

A new way to slice time series into meaningful chunks instead of arbitrary equal-length pieces

01The paper shows that fixed-length, multi-scale, and flexible-length patch splitting all fail to capture meaningful structure like trends, periodic patterns, or sudden changes
02SCPaT generates 'semantic units' by measuring local variance in the data: stable regions get longer segments, rapidly changing regions get shorter ones
03A neural approximation of transfer entropy is used to estimate directed influence between these units, forming a dynamic graph that is then clustered into higher-order 'semantic blocks'
04An importance-aware routing mechanism sends different semantic blocks to different expert sub-networks, and uses a flexible Top-P rule so the number of active experts adapts to how confident the routing decision is
05On long- and short-term forecasting benchmarks, SCPaT cut average error by 4.6%, 7.1%, and 4.1% compared to PatchTST, TimesNet, and HDMixer respectively on the four ETT datasets, and stayed comparatively stable under missing data and added noise

An explanatory diagram made by METAL MEDIA, not a figure supplied by the paper's authors.

What they did

The paper shows that fixed-length, multi-scale, and flexible-length patch splitting all fail to capture meaningful structure like trends, periodic patterns, or sudden changes
SCPaT generates 'semantic units' by measuring local variance in the data: stable regions get longer segments, rapidly changing regions get shorter ones
A neural approximation of transfer entropy is used to estimate directed influence between these units, forming a dynamic graph that is then clustered into higher-order 'semantic blocks'
An importance-aware routing mechanism sends different semantic blocks to different expert sub-networks, and uses a flexible Top-P rule so the number of active experts adapts to how confident the routing decision is
On long- and short-term forecasting benchmarks, SCPaT cut average error by 4.6%, 7.1%, and 4.1% compared to PatchTST, TimesNet, and HDMixer respectively on the four ETT datasets, and stayed comparatively stable under missing data and added noise

Figure 1: Comparison of four patch based schemes: fixed partitioning, multi-scale partitioning, extendable partitioning, and the proposed semantic structured partitioning.

Table 1: Summary of the 12 datasets used in our forecasting experiments, including the prediction horizons, data dimensionality, sampling frequency, and total number of time points.
Task Type	Dataset	Prediction Horizons	Time Point	Dimension	Frequency
Long-term Forecasting	ETTh1	{96,192,336,720}	17420	7	Hourly
ETTh2	{96,192,336,720}	17420	7	Hourly
ETTm1	{96,192,336,720}	69680	7	15 min
ETTm2	{96,192,336,720}	69680	7	15 min
Weather	{96,192,336,720}	52603	21	10 min
Traffic	{96,192,336,720}	17451	862	Hourly
Electricity	{96,192,336,720}	26211	321	Hourly
Solar	{96,192,336,720}	52179	137	10 min
Short-term Forecasting	PEMS03	{12,24,48}	26208	358	5 min
PEMS04	{12,24,48}	16992	307	5 min
PEMS07	{12,24,48}	28224	883	5 min
PEMS08	{12,24,48}	17856	170	5 min

Figure 2: SCPaT architecture consists of: (a) Semantic Vector Encoder, which encodes time series into semantic units; (b) Transfer Entropy Graph Constructor, quantifies directed dependencies and constructs a dynamic semantic graph; and (c) Importance aware Routing, allocates customized processing strategies to different semantic blocks for effective modeling.

Table 2: Multivariate long-term forecasting results over four prediction horizons, H∈{96,192,336,720}, with the input length fixed at L=96. The best and second-best results are marked in bold red and blue underline, respectively.
Models	SCPaT	MSPatch	DUET	iTransformer	MSGNet	HDMixer	PatchTST	TimesNet	CrossFormer	LSTM
	(Ours)	(2025)	(2025)	(2024)	(2024)	(2024)	(2023)	(2023)	(2023)	(1997)
Metric	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE
ETTh1	96	0.370	0.392	0.372	0.395	0.384	0.402	0.386	0.405	0.390	0.411	0.386	0.401	0.414	0.419	0.384	0.402	0.423	0.448
192	0.418	0.422	0.428	0.426	0.437	0.429	0.441	0.436	0.442	0.442	0.441	0.430	0.460	0.445	0.446	0.439	0.471	0.474	1.217
336	0.452	0.440	0.484	0.452	0.477	0.453	0.465	0.445	0.487	0.458	0.458	0.443	0.501	0.466	0.491	0.469	0.570	0.546	1.259
720	0.449	0.458	0.480	0.473	0.486	0.475	0.503	0.491	0.494	0.488	0.512	0.484	0.500	0.488	0.521	0.500	0.653	0.621	1.271
ETTh2	96	0.288	0.338	0.292	0.344	0.298	0.351	0.297	0.349	0.328	0.371	0.293	0.338	0.302	0.348	0.340	0.374	0.745	0.584
192	0.373	0.396	0.383	0.402	0.374	0.394	0.380	0.400	0.402	0.414	0.379	0.396	0.388	0.400	0.402	0.414	0.877	0.656	3.312
336	0.408	0.427	0.417	0.431	0.417	0.431	0.428	0.432	0.435	0.443	0.426	0.444	0.426	0.433	0.452	0.452	1.043	0.731	3.291
720	0.430	0.444	0.422	0.446	0.427	0.442	0.430	0.445	0.441	0.444	0.429	0.447	0.431	0.446	0.462	0.468	1.104	0.763	3.257
ETTm1	96	0.320	0.360	0.324	0.363	0.329	0.361	0.334	0.368	0.323	0.366	0.340	0.368	0.329	0.367	0.338	0.375	0.404	0.426
192	0.362	0.383	0.367	0.385	0.364	0.385	0.377	0.391	0.376	0.397	0.382	0.386	0.367	0.385	0.374	0.387	0.450	0.451	1.113
336	0.389	0.402	0.390	0.404	0.396	0.408	0.426	0.420	0.417	0.422	0.403	0.411	0.399	0.410	0.410	0.411	0.532	0.515	1.267
720	0.456	0.436	0.454	0.437	0.469	0.437	0.491	0.459	0.481	0.458	0.473	0.439	0.454	0.439	0.478	0.450	0.666	0.589	1.324
ETTm2	96	0.173	0.258	0.175	0.260	0.179	0.262	0.180	0.264	0.181	0.262	0.183	0.266	0.181	0.259	0.187	0.267	0.287	0.366
192	0.238	0.300	0.239	0.302	0.240	0.300	0.250	0.309	0.247	0.307	0.247	0.307	0.241	0.302	0.249	0.309	0.414	0.492	2.249
336	0.297	0.339	0.297	0.340	0.302	0.341	0.311	0.348	0.312	0.346	0.305	0.345	0.305	0.343	0.321	0.351	0.597	0.543	2.568
720	0.394	0.394	0.396	0.397	0.399	0.397	0.412	0.407	0.414	0.403	0.406	0.400	0.402	0.406	0.408	0.403	1.730	1.042	2.720
Weather	96	0.163	0.208	0.165	0.209	0.167	0.209	0.174	0.214	0.169	0.212	0.174	0.223	0.177	0.218	0.172	0.220	0.171	0.230
192	0.209	0.250	0.211	0.252	0.212	0.254	0.221	0.254	0.218	0.255	0.225	0.264	0.225	0.259	0.219	0.261	0.226	0.277	0.416
336	0.266	0.292	0.268	0.294	0.269	0.297	0.278	0.296	0.272	0.299	0.277	0.301	0.278	0.297	0.280	0.306	0.272	0.335	0.455
720	0.345	0.349	0.342	0.345	0.348	0.347	0.358	0.349	0.350	0.348	0.349	0.347	0.354	0.348	0.365	0.359	0.398	0.418	0.535
Traffic	96	0.393	0.247	0.460	0.295	0.395	0.256	0.395	0.268	0.605	0.344	0.529	0.353	0.544	0.359	0.593	0.321	0.522	0.290
192	0.425	0.259	0.466	0.300	0.420	0.266	0.417	0.276	0.613	0.359	0.535	0.361	0.540	0.354	0.617	0.336	0.530	0.293	0.847
336	0.454	0.270	0.484	0.306	0.458	0.272	0.461	0.283	0.642	0.376	0.541	0.361	0.551	0.358	0.629	0.336	0.558	0.305	0.853
720	0.489	0.291	0.510	0.323	0.499	0.288	0.497	0.302	0.702	0.401	0.591	0.389	0.586	0.375	0.640	0.350	0.589	0.328	1.500
Electricity	96	0.139	0.233	0.158	0.257	0.148	0.236	0.149	0.240	0.165	0.274	0.163	0.275	0.195	0.285	0.168	0.272	0.219	0.314
192	0.155	0.248	0.171	0.268	0.164	0.249	0.162	0.253	0.184	0.292	0.186	0.281	0.195	0.285	0.184	0.289	0.231	0.322	0.442
336	0.168	0.263	0.184	0.283	0.178	0.265	0.178	0.269	0.195	0.302	0.199	0.295	0.215	0.305	0.198	0.300	0.246	0.337	0.439
720	0.200	0.293	0.223	0.308	0.206	0.303	0.225	0.317	0.231	0.332	0.231	0.321	0.256	0.337	0.220	0.320	0.280	0.363	0.980

Figure 3: Sensitivity analysis of the hyperparameters α and Top-P on ETTm1, ETTh1, ETTh2, and Weather, with both the input length and prediction horizon fixed at 96.

Table 3: Multivariate short-term forecasting results over three prediction horizons, H∈{12,24,48}, with the input length fixed at L=96. The best and second-best results are marked in bold red and blue underline, respectively.
Models	SCPaT	MSPatch	DUET	iTransformer	MSGNet	HDMixer	TimesNet	PatchTST	CrossFormer
	(Ours)	(2025)	(2025)	(2024)	(2024)	(2024)	(2023)	(2023)	(2023)
Metric	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE
PEMS03	12	0.066	0.169	0.074	0.179	0.071	0.176	0.071	0.174	0.083	0.197	0.076	0.184	0.085	0.192	0.099	0.216	0.090	0.203
24	0.086	0.195	0.097	0.200	0.089	0.197	0.093	0.201	0.097	0.217	0.095	0.210	0.118	0.223	0.142	0.259	0.121	0.240
48	0.122	0.235	0.131	0.244	0.118	0.229	0.125	0.236	0.135	0.241	0.122	0.245	0.155	0.260	0.211	0.319	0.202	0.317
PEMS04	12	0.073	0.176	0.075	0.185	0.076	0.179	0.078	0.183	0.082	0.187	0.084	0.188	0.087	0.195	0.105	0.224	0.098	0.218
24	0.091	0.199	0.093	0.201	0.097	0.203	0.095	0.205	0.128	0.241	0.097	0.210	0.103	0.215	0.153	0.257	0.131	0.256
48	0.124	0.237	0.134	0.244	0.119	0.239	0.126	0.240	0.192	0.315	0.134	0.253	0.136	0.250	0.229	0.339	0.205	0.326
PEMS07	12	0.058	0.153	0.066	0.162	0.059	0.166	0.067	0.165	0.087	0.191	0.074	0.182	0.082	0.181	0.095	0.207	0.094	0.200
24	0.074	0.174	0.083	0.189	0.079	0.183	0.088	0.190	0.135	0.241	0.089	0.197	0.101	0.204	0.150	0.262	0.139	0.247
48	0.102	0.207	0.112	0.217	0.106	0.211	0.110	0.215	0.297	0.351	0.124	0.217	0.134	0.238	0.253	0.340	0.311	0.369
PEMS08	12	0.070	0.173	0.079	0.175	0.077	0.177	0.079	0.182	0.159	0.208	0.098	0.193	0.112	0.212	0.168	0.232	0.165	0.214
24	0.085	0.187	0.094	0.211	0.098	0.201	0.115	0.219	0.210	0.251	0.108	0.223	0.141	0.238	0.224	0.281	0.215	0.260
48	0.112	0.220	0.150	0.232	0.139	0.227	0.186	0.235	0.311	0.358	0.167	0.247	0.198	0.283	0.321	0.354	0.315	0.335
1st Count	9	11	0	0	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Figure 4: Performance degradation under different Gaussian noise levels on ETTh1 and Weather with both the input length and prediction horizon fixed at 96.

Table 4: Average routing probability distribution across experts, with both the input length and prediction horizon fixed at 96.
Dataset	Expert 1	Expert 2	Expert 3
ETTh1	0.62	0.21	0.17
ETTm1	0.51	0.25	0.24
Weather	0.81	0.11	0.08

Figure 5: Performance comparison under different look-back window lengths on ETTm1, ETTh1, Electricity, and Weather, with L∈{48,96,192,336,720} and the prediction horizon fixed at 96.

Table 5: Robustness analysis on the ETTm2 and ETTh1 datasets under different missing rates, with the input length fixed at L=96 and the prediction horizon fixed at H=96. The best results are highlighted in bold.
Missing Rate	ETTm2	ETTh1
SCPaT (Ours)	iTransformer	PatchTST	SCPaT (Ours)	iTransformer	PatchTST
MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE	MSE	MAE
0.00	0.173	0.258	0.180	0.264	0.181	0.259	0.370	0.392	0.386	0.405	0.414	0.419
0.05	0.213	0.297	0.249	0.441	0.252	0.327	0.379	0.401	0.404	0.413	0.436	0.428
0.10	0.248	0.326	0.295	0.472	0.328	0.376	0.390	0.412	0.433	0.424	0.455	0.441
0.15	0.287	0.354	0.379	0.559	0.411	0.423	0.404	0.424	0.462	0.432	0.467	0.460
0.20	0.332	0.385	0.433	0.567	0.502	0.471	0.419	0.438	0.478	0.448	0.482	0.483
0.25	0.388	0.419	0.506	0.574	0.601	0.520	0.437	0.454	0.487	0.473	0.498	0.503
0.30	0.452	0.456	0.596	0.580	0.709	0.569	0.459	0.471	0.500	0.498	0.511	0.527

Figure 6: Heatmaps of the learned directed adjacency matrix Afinal on the ETTh1 and Weather datasets.

Table 6: Ablation results of the SCPaT components on ETTm2, Weather, and Traffic over prediction horizons H∈{96,192,336,720}, with the input length fixed at L=96. The best and second-best results are marked in bold red and blue underline, respectively.
Dataset	ETTm2	Weather	Traffic
Prediction Length	96	192	336	720	96	192	336	720	96	192	336	720
SCPaT	MSE	0.173	0.238	0.297	0.394	0.163	0.209	0.266	0.345	0.393	0.425	0.454	0.489
MAE	0.258	0.300	0.339	0.394	0.208	0.250	0.292	0.349	0.247	0.259	0.270	0.291
w/o SV Encoder	MSE	0.196	0.259	0.317	0.412	0.204	0.248	0.302	0.373	0.414	0.448	0.478	0.510
MAE	0.278	0.318	0.354	0.408	0.254	0.287	0.323	0.367	0.274	0.281	0.294	0.316
w/o IAR	MSE	0.178	0.245	0.302	0.400	0.167	0.216	0.273	0.353	0.397	0.431	0.459	0.495
MAE	0.264	0.309	0.347	0.402	0.214	0.257	0.299	0.354	0.253	0.267	0.274	0.297
w/o TE Graph	MSE	0.180	0.247	0.309	0.407	0.171	0.214	0.277	0.356	0.401	0.436	0.466	0.498
MAE	0.270	0.311	0.343	0.413	0.221	0.262	0.301	0.355	0.249	0.264	0.277	0.301

Figure 8: Model efficiency comparison of different methods on ETTm2 and Weather.

Why it matters

Multivariate forecasting of things like electricity demand, weather, and traffic underlies real infrastructure and energy decisions, so a partitioning method that better respects the actual structure of the data and holds up under noisy or incomplete inputs matters for practical deployment. The explicit robustness tests against missing values and Gaussian noise make the reported gains more relevant beyond clean benchmark conditions.

Terms in this paper

patch · a short segment cut from a longer time series, used as an input unit for the model
transfer entropy · a measure of how much knowing one variable's past helps predict another variable's future, capturing directional influence
routing · sending different inputs to different specialized sub-models (experts) for processing
Top-P routing · selecting just enough experts so their combined probability passes a threshold, rather than always picking a fixed number
modularity · a score measuring how well a graph is divided into natural clusters

Original abstract (English)

Multivariate time series forecasting (MTSF) is a fundamental task in many real world applications. Existing patch based forecasting methods generally fall into three categories: fixed partitioning, multi-scale partitioning, and extendable partitioning. Fixed partitioning often breaks meaningful temporal boundaries, multi-scale partitioning may introduce redundant representations across scales, and extendable partitioning improves flexibility but still lacks an explicit mechanism for organizing semantic structure and modeling interactions among heterogeneous temporal patterns. To address these limitations, we propose SCPaT, a Transformer based framework built on semantic structured partitioning. SCPaT first decomposes input sequences into semantically consistent units through adaptive semantic unit generation, then constructs a dynamic semantic graph to model directed dependencies among these units and organize them into higher order semantic blocks. Based on these structured representations, an importance aware routing mechanism adaptively dispatches different semantic blocks to different experts for customized modeling. Extensive experiments on 12 real world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of SCPaT.

Authors · Jiazhe Wang, Zhiquan Huang, Linjing Xue, Ming Liu, Meiwen Li, Ruijuan Zheng

Read on arXiv

Latest papers

All papers →

Latest from METAL MEDIA

Figures: Jiazhe Wang et al., arXiv:2608.19966, arxiv-nonexclusive