Traffic Forecasting Using Federated Randomized High-Order Fuzzy Cognitive Maps | Springer Nature Link (formerly SpringerLink) Skip to main content Advertisement Menu Find a journal Publish with us Track your research Search Cart Home Intelligent Systems Conference paper Traffic Forecasting Using Federated Randomized High-Order Fuzzy Cognitive Maps Conference paper First Online: 30 January 2025 pp 445–459 Cite this conference paper Access provided by University of Notre Dame Hesburgh Library Download book PDF Download book EPUB Intelligent Systems (BRACIS 2024) Traffic Forecasting Using Federated Randomized High-Order Fuzzy Cognitive Maps Download book PDF Download book EPUB Omid Orang  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4077-377511, Felipe A. R. da Silva  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4567-85049, Petrônio C. L. Silva  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1202-255210,11, Pedro H. S. S. Barros  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6606-013511, Heitor S. Ramos  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4523-646611 & … Frederico G. Guimarães  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9238-883911  Show authors Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 15413)) Included in the following conference series: Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems 384 Accesses 2 Citations Abstract Numerous machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) forecasting techniques have emerged for predicting traffic flow and traffic speed. Despite their notable achievements, they encounter challenges related to preserving in-vehicle user privacy. Alternatively, Federated Learning (FL) offers a decentralized ML strategy to strike a balance between prediction accuracy and privacy preservation. This paper proposes a novel fuzzy-based method called FL-RHFCM, which integrates the principles of Randomized High-order Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (R-HFCM) with FL. R-HFCM is akin to an echo state network (ESN), where the only trainable component is the output layer using least squares (LS) minimization. The reservoir layer’s weights are initialized randomly and remain unchanged during training. Thus, the LS coefficients represent the only parameters shared with the server for aggregation in our FL-RHFCM approach. FL-RHFCM introduces an efficient distributed forecasting method using FCMs, significantly reducing communication costs. The effectiveness of our proposed model is assessed using two datasets, demonstrating its promise compared to some existing baseline methods. Access provided by University of Notre Dame Hesburgh Library. Download conference paper PDF Similar content being viewed by others Automated forecasting model leveraging large reservoirs of randomized fuzzy cognitive maps Article 11 November 2025 Dual-Layer FL and Blockchain Empowered High Accurate Edge Training Framework Chapter © 2024 Federated learning analysis for vehicular traffic flow prediction: evaluation of learning algorithms and aggregation approaches Article 14 January 2024 1 Introduction Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) have recently gained attention due to rising road safety and efficiency concerns. Traffic prediction is crucial for route planning, optimizing vehicle dispatching, controlling traffic congestion, etc. [1, 2]. Traffic prediction (travel time, flows, speeds, occupancy, and demand) utilizes a trainable function to analyze past traffic data and forecast future traffic conditions. It relies on two primary types of data: traffic flow, indicating total detected vehicles over a period, and traffic speed, representing average vehicle velocity in the same area during the same time frame [3]. This study will refer to traffic flow and speed as traffic. Forecasting traffic presents a formidable challenge given the non-linear, time-dependent, and spatio-temporal properties of traffic time series [1, 4]. Consequently, developing an accurate traffic prediction model is imperative. Accordingly, a wide range of traffic forecasting approaches have been presented in the literature, which can be broadly categorized into conventional parametric statistical models and non-parametric machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL)-based methods [1, 5]. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models and their variants, including Seasonal ARIMA (SARIMA) and Vector ARIMA (VARIMA), are commonly used statistical techniques in traffic prediction, as discussed in [5, 6]. However, these models encounter challenges due to the complexity, non-stationarity, and non-linearity of traffic data. Additionally, ARIMA models generally necessitate a substantial volume of historical data to perform effectively, which may not always be accessible [5, 7]. To tackle these challenges, ML and DL methods are extensively utilized in traffic prediction tasks owing to their capacity to automatically extract crucial features from historical traffic data, thus eliminating the need for complex mathematical model design. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), and their variants, such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), have shown remarkable performance [5, 8]. In addition, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) [4] are considered state-of-the-art methods particularly well-suited for traffic forecasting challenges due to their capacity to capture spatial dependencies. As discussed in [4], several types of GNNs have been developed, including graph recurrent neural networks (GRNN) [9], graph-structured recurrent neural networks (GSRNN) [10], and graph LSTM (GLSTM) [11], among others. Attention mechanisms and transformers represent another category of DL techniques that have proven effective in the field of traffic prediction [5, 12, 13]. Despite the considerable success and frequent usage of DL methods, they suffer from limitations such as interpretability, parsimony, and high computational costs in terms of time and resources. Fuzzy Time Series (FTS) forecasting methods offer an alternative due to their simplicity, interpretability, updatability, scalability, and capacity to handle uncertainty and complex systems [14]. FTS is a methodology for time series forecasting (TSF) that involves converting the numerical time series into a linguistic time series representation using fuzzy sets. Then, the transitions between the fuzzy sets in the historical data are used to find rules for forecasting. Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs), a subset of weighted FTS methods, represent a specialized category in fuzzy modeling and forecasting techniques [15]. FCMs, as interpretable ML models, have a good capacity for dealing with uncertainty and effectively simulating the dynamic behavior of non-linear and complex systems [15, 16]. Few studies among the proposed FTS methods have utilized FCM for traffic prediction. Examples include interpretable deep attention FCM in [17], interpretable deep FCM (DFCM) in [18], FCM learned with an evolutionary algorithm (FCMEVOL) in [19]. From another perspective, existing centralized ML and DL traffic prediction methods necessitate collecting raw data for model training, leading to significant privacy risks. DL algorithms typically require vehicles to transmit raw data, including sensitive information like location, to a central server for training the proposed models in a centralized manner [20]. If the central server is compromised, the entire forecasting system is vulnerable to a single point-of-failure attack, risking severe privacy breaches for vehicles. Additionally, heavy reliance on extensive data for centralized training increases communication overhead and the risk of data leakage and pollution [21]. To address these problems, federated learning (FL) [22], which shares model updates without exchanging raw data, has recently been introduced as an efficient solution [23]. FL performs local learning model calculations and then sends the local learning model parameters to the central server for global model aggregation. Accordingly, it can avoid direct interaction with original data and achieve the trade-off between model performance, communication overhead, and data privacy. To the best of our knowledge, only two investigations have explored the use of FL and FCMs. The authors in [24] implemented FL methods for FCMs in medical applications, specifically for classifying dengue in Colombian cities. A blind federated learning approach without an initial model was introduced in [25] proposing two innovative methodologies for PSO-based FL of FCMs to classify breast cancer and demographic features related to adult income. Consequently, there are no references regarding federated FCMs in forecasting applications. Thus, the focal contribution of this study is to fill this gap by presenting a novel univariate forecasting method termed FL-RHFCM for the first time in the literature. FL-RHFCM is a hybrid method integrating FL and randomized high-order FCM (R-HFCM) to predict traffic flow and traffic speed. R-HFCM [26] is a new class of FCMs combining FTS, FCM, and echo-state network (ESN), trained via least squares (LS). It functions as an ESN with input, reservoir, and output layers. The reservoir contains parallel sub-reservoirs (L) with unalterable weights, a unique feature that sets R-HFCM apart from typical FCM-based methods. LS is then applied to train the output layer and determine the LS coefficients (\(\lambda _i\)). Therefore, in FL-RHFCM, each user is trained locally to obtain the optimal values of \(\lambda _i\). Afterward, these values are shared with the server to be aggregated using the average method to update the global model. Finally, clients are updated locally, receiving updated global model parameters from the aggregator. This process is executed for 15 rounds using the Flower platform. The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Sect. 2 shares a brief review of traffic prediction; Sect. 3 provides a comprehensive presentation of the proposed approach; Sect. 4 details the experimental results and discussion; and lastly, Sect. 6 encapsulates the paper’s findings and delineates potential directions for future research. 2 Literature Review Plenty of univariate and multivariate traffic forecasting techniques have been developed in the literature [3, 27], which can be grouped into three main classes, including statistical methods, traditional ML, and DL methods. According to [27, 28], statistical methods, particularly ARIMA and its variants such as SARIMA, SARIMAX, Kohenen ARIMA (KARIMA), and Vector ARIMA, have been frequently employed to predict traffic. These methods are generally suitable for simpler and less complex datasets but require a substantial volume of historical data to perform effectively. This dual requirement means they face limitations when dealing with non-stationary, non-linear, spatio-temporal, and complex datasets. ML models excel in generalization and adaptability to changing traffic network conditions compared to statistical methods [27, 28]. They are typically divided into three categories: feature-based methods, Gaussian process models, and state-space models, capable of handling non-linear and complex time series data [29]. They have pros and cons, as explained in [27]. Artificial neural networks (ANN) [30], k-nearest neighbor (KNN) [31], and support vector regression (SVR) are some examples of this category [32]. DL methods are extensively used in traffic prediction tasks because of their strong capacity to capture stochastic and nonlinear relationships in traffic data [27]. Based on this reference, Multi-layer Perceptrons (MLP), Autoencoder (AE), CNN, RNN, LSTM, GNNs, Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs), Deep Belief Networks (DBN), Graph Convolution Network (GCN), Wavelet Neural Network (WNN) and Attention-based models have been employed to predict traffic. Also, the authors in [3] reviewed 37 DL traffic forecasting models to predict spatial and/or temporal traffic flow and speed, confirming various types of DNN methods. For instance, in [33], DBN, k-means clustering, and Dempster-Shafer theory are utilized for traffic flow prediction, while in [34], CNN with Pearson correlation-based theory is employed to predict traffic speed. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) with DL are another traffic forecasting method elaborated in [4], including models like graph LSTM (GLSTM), graph multi-attention network (GMAN), graph attention temporal convolutional network (GATCN), among others. The next sub-group of DNN forecasting methods are hybrid methods such as LSTM and bidirectional LSTM [35], encoder-decoder LSTM and FNN-based attention module [36], encoder-decoder GRU, and graph diffusion [37], encoder-decoder GRU, FNN and graph attention network [38], among others. Fuzzy-based forecasting models are the last category of traffic forecasting techniques that can solve some limitations regarding DL methods regarding interpretability, training time, scalability, and complexity. A new fuzzy-based CNN method in [39], an evolving fuzzy neural network (EFNN) in [40], and an adaptive hybrid fuzzy rule-based system in [41] are some studies in this group. Also, some researchers combined fuzzy and DL such as fuzzy deep convolution network (FDCN) in [42], spatiotemporal fuzzy-graph convolutional network model in [43], and a combination of fuzzy logic, LSTM, and decision trees (DTs) in [44]. Despite accurately forecasting centralized methods, data privacy poses significant challenges. To address this, some researchers have utilized decentralized FL methods to make a tradeoff between prediction accuracy and privacy preservation. An integration of FL and GRU in [45], a combination of FL and attention-based spatial-temporal GNN (ASTGNN) in [46], graph attention networks (GAT), LSTM, and FL in [21], clustering-based hierarchical and two-step-optimized FL in [47], federated community GCN (FCGCN) in [48], and FL with asynchronous GCN in [49] are some examples of FL-based models for traffic flow and speed forecasting. FCMs, as a neuro-fuzzy method, have shown considerable success in capturing the dynamics of various complex systems and effectively handling uncertainties [26]. Despite this, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding using decentralized FCMs for predictive applications, such as traffic forecasting. To address this, our research introduces a novel federated FCM forecasting model in this field. Fig. 1. Generic structure of the proposed R-HFCM technique Full size image 3 Proposed FL-RHFCM Method As explained in [15], FCMs are composed of a set of concepts and signed directed connections, known as weights. Therefore, weight matrices form the core element of each FCM, and various training methods have been developed to optimize both the weights and structure. This research introduces a novel hybrid univariate forecasting method called FL-RHFCM, a fusion of R-HFCM and FL, to predict traffic flow and speed. R-HFCM [26] is a centralized FCM-based forecasting method with a different structure from regular FCMs. Accordingly, this section is divided into two subsections. Section 3.1 details R-HFCM, and Sect. 3.2 provides information regarding our proposed FL-RHFM technique. 3.1 Centralized R-HFCM Method R-HFCM is a hybrid method combining the concepts of FTS, FCMs, and echo state networks (ESN) [26]. More precisely, as shown in Fig. 1, R-HFCM consists of three layers: the input layer, reservoir, and output layer. The reservoir layer is composed of a specific number of sub-reservoirs (L). Each sub-reservoir employs the HFCM-FTS method [50], with weights randomly initialized following the ESN approach and kept constant throughout training. Then, output from each sub-reservoir, generated from the defuzzification step, is fed to the output layer. Finally, LS is employed to train the output layer and identify the optimal values of LS coefficients (\(\lambda _i\)). From another point of view, R-HFCM can be seen as an ESN (or reservoir computing) method such that only the output layer is trainable. In R-HFCM, the LS coefficients (\(\lambda _i\)) serve as the sole trainable parameters. Thus, R-HFCM is not focused on training weights among the concepts. This property distinguishes R-HFCM from other FCM-based methods and makes it much faster than methods trained via population-based techniques such as genetic algorithms (GA) or particle swarm optimization (PSO). Figure 2 a simple topology of the R-HFCM method with \(L=2\), \(k=5\) (concepts), and \(\varOmega =2\) (order). In this case, LS trains the output layer to find LS coefficients. The number of coefficients is three (\(\lambda _0,\lambda _1\) and \(\lambda _2\)) which means that the number of LS coefficients directly depends on the number of sub-reservoirs. As such, the number of LS coefficients is equal to \(L+1\). The details of training and forecasting procedures are described in detail as follows: Fig. 2. A simple example R-HFCM model with L = 2, \(\varOmega = 2\) and k = 5. Full size image A. Training Process 1) Weight and bias initialization: The weights among the concepts \(C_i\) and \(C_j\) are randomly chosen from a uniform distribution in [−1,1] and scaled inspiring by ESN weight initialization using: (1) where \(\mathbf {\rho _{max}}(\mathbf {W^{rand}})\) is the largest absolute eigenvalue of \(\mathbf {W^{rand}}\), and \(\mathbf {\epsilon } = 0.5\). The bias vector \(\mathbf {w^0}\) is initialized similarly: (2) where \(\textbf{S}\) is the maximum singular value of \(\mathbf {w_{rand}^0}\). 2) Partitioning: Firstly, the Universe of Discourse (UoD) is determined using the formula \(UoD = [\min (Y_i)-D_1, \max (Y_i)+D_2]\), where \(D_1 = \min (Y_i)\times 0.2\) and \(D_2 = \max (Y_i)\times 0.2\). Then, UoD is partitioned into k even-length intervals (representing concepts of FCMs) using grid partitioning and the triangular membership function. 3) Fuzzification: In this step, the activation state \(a_i(t)\) of each concept \(C_i \in C\), \(\forall y(t) \in Y\), is computed to convert the crisp time series Y into a fuzzy series A. Each fuzzified sample \(a(t) \in A\) is given by \(a_i(t) = \mu _{C_i}(y(t))\), \(\forall i\in \{1, \ldots , k\}\). 4) Activation: The state value of each concept within each sub-reservoir at time t+1 is updated based on the following formula: $$\begin{aligned} \textbf{a}_j(t+1) = f\left( \textbf{w}^0+ \sum _{l=1}^\varOmega \textbf{W}^{l} \cdot \textbf{a}(t-l+1) \right) \end{aligned}$$ (3) 5) Defuzzification: The output from each sub-reservoir is generated through this process using the below equation: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{y}_j(t+1)=\dfrac{\sum _{i=1}^k a_{ji}(t+1) \cdot mp_{i}}{\sum _{i=1}^k a_{ji}(t+1)} \end{aligned}$$ (4) where \(a_j(t+1)\) is the activation state of each concept at time \(t+1\) and \(mp_i\) represents the center of each concept \(C_i\). 6) Calculating LS coefficients: From the outputs \(y_j(t+1)\) \(\forall j \in \{1,\ldots ,L\}\), and for each input sample \(y(t)\in Y\), \(t=1\ldots T\), a design matrix X is formed for the linear system \(Y = \lambda X\). The LS method is then used to find the coefficient vector \(\lambda \) to minimize the mean squared error. B. Forecasting Process 1) Fuzzification: Same as the third stage of the training process. 2) Activation: Same as the fourth stage of the training process. 3) Defuzzification: First, the defuzzified value of each sub-reservoir is calculated using Eq. 4. Then, the linear combination of \(\hat{y}_j(t+1)\) and \(\lambda _j\) is considered to generate the final predicted value as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{y}_{f}(t+1)=\lambda _0+\sum _{j=1}^{L} \lambda _{j}\cdot \hat{y}_{j}(t+1) \end{aligned}$$ (5) 3.2 Decentralized R-HFCM Method This section introduces FL-RHFCM as a decentralized adaptation of the R-HFCM technique, wherein FL is incorporated into R-HFCM to enhance data privacy. Thus, in FL-RHFCM, data is not shared among the users, and each user is trained using the local dataset. Figure 3 exhibits our proposed FL-RHFCM approach. Given m users, denoted as \(\{U_1, U_2,\dots , U_m\}\), each associated with its local data denoted by \(\{Y_1, Y_2, \dots , Y_m\} \). In FL-RHFCM, the UoD for each client is calculated using \(UoD = [\min (Y_i)-D_1, \max (Y_i)+D_2]\), as expressed earlier. Fig. 3. The generic architecture of FL-RHFCM, considering m clients with m different datasets Full size image In Fig. 3, \(a_i\) and \(b_i\) respectively represent \(\min {(Y_i)}\) and \(\max {(Y_i)}\), \(\forall i \in m\). Furthermore, \(w_0\), W, and \(\lambda _{avg}\) represent bias, weight, and average LS coefficients, respectively. As mentioned earlier in Sect. 3.1, the only trainable parameters in the R-HFCM method are LS coefficients. Accordingly, each local node is in charge of training a local model and sending the local model to the server node for aggregation. More specifically, the steps of our proposed federated method are expressed as follows: Step 1 The server initializes \(w_0\), W, a, b, and \(\lambda \), then transmits them to the clients. Besides, \(w_0\) and W remain fixed and are the same during all executions. Step 2 Each client (\(U_i\)) is trained using local time series (\(Y_i\)), calculating \(a_i\), \(b_i\) and \(\lambda _i \in \{\lambda _{0i},\lambda _{1i},\ldots ,\lambda _{li}\}\), \(\forall l \in L \). Step 3 The obtained \(a_i\), \(b_i\) and \(\lambda _i\) are transferred to the server for aggregation. The server updates a, b, and \(\lambda \) as follows: \( a=\min _{i=1}^{m} a_i\), \( b=\max _{i=1}^{m} b_i\) and \(\lambda =\frac{1}{m} \sum _{i=1}^{m} \lambda _i\). Step 4 The updated values are shared with the users. The performance of the proposed model for each user is calculated in terms of accuracy metrics. Step 5 This process is repeated in 15 rounds. It is worth noting that we deployed FL-RHFCM with three client nodes, each trained using distinct time series datasets, as explained in the following section. 4 Computational Experiments 4.1 Case Studies Two different traffic datasets are exploited to validate our approach: 1. Traffic flow (hourly)Footnote 1: This dataset collected from sensors contains 48,120 observations of the number of vehicles in four junctions; 2. Traffic speed (minutely)Footnote 2: contains 6 road segments of the Xueyuan Road in Beijing, China. Fig. 4. Plotting of 8,000 samples from three junctions (J1, J2, and J3) Full size image Table 1. Summary statistics of the 6 datasets used in the experimentsFull size table Fig. 5. Plotting of 8,000 samples from three road segments (R3, R4, and R5) Full size image This study employs datasets from three junctions (J1, J2, and J3) and three segments (R3, R4, and R5). Detailed information about these time series is reported in Table 1. In addition, Figs. 4 and 5 display traffic flow and traffic speed time series, respectively. 4.2 Experimental Methodology Root mean squared error (RMSE) and normalized RMSE (NRMSE) are employed to evaluate the model’s accuracy. RMSE is calculated using $$ RMSE = \sqrt{ \frac{1}{n} \sum _{i=1}^n (y_i - \hat{y}_i)^2 }, $$ where \(y_i\) represents the actual values, \(\hat{y}_i\) represents the predicted values, and n is the total number of samples. NRMSE is then obtained by normalizing RMSE as follows: $$ NRMSE = \frac{RMSE}{y_{max}-y_{min}}. $$ These metrics provide insights into the model’s performance. It is noteworthy that 80% of each dataset is designated for training, while the remaining 20% is for testing. The model’s Python code is publicly available for replication via the provided link: https://github.com/OMIDUFMG2019/FL-RHFCM-model. 5 Results and Discussion This section analyzes the accuracy of FL-RHFCM in comparison to various centralized methods, including R-HFCM, PWFTS, LSTM, CNN, CNN-LSTM, and ARIMA. As we mentioned, FL-RHFCM includes three client nodes. Two scenarios are considered: (i) in the first scenario, each traffic speed time series (R3, R4, and R5) is directed to each node, and (ii) in the second scenario, each node receives its traffic flow time series (J1, J2, and J3). To obtain the optimized performance of the FL-HFCM technique, multiple experiments are conducted, exploring various combinations of hyperparameters (HPs) including \(k \in \{3,4,\ldots ,10,20,30\}\), \(L \in \{2,3,\ldots ,10,20,40\}\), \(\varOmega \in \{2,3,\ldots ,10\}\), and \(f \in \{sigmoid,tanh, ReLU\} \)). In Scenario 1, the best performance is achieved with \(L=20\), \(k=3\), \(\varOmega =5\), and \(f=tanh\), whereas \(L=8\), \(k=3\), \(\varOmega =5\), and \(f=tanh\) yield the best result in Scenario 2. It is worth observing that the randomized grid search is utilized to find the best HPs for competing methods. Table 2 showcases the experimental results of all methods to compare the performance of FL-RHFCM with other centralized techniques. The evaluation metrics used are RMSE and NRMSE, where the top result for each dataset is highlighted in bold and the second-best is underscored. Table 2. Comparison of the FL-RHFCM method with other centralized modelsFull size table The recorded results in Table 2 suggest that FL-RHFCM performs better predicting traffic speed than forecasting traffic flow. In more detail, FL-RHFCM outperforms other competing methods with R3 and J3 datasets, while centralized R-HFCM is superior for R4, R5, and J2. To this end, employing the average NRMSE facilitates a meticulous comparison of the accuracy of the methods. According to the table, R-HFCM demonstrates the most accurate predictor. Although PWFTS, CNN-LSTM, and LSTM outperform FL-RHFCM, their performances only marginally exceed that of FL-RHFCM. Furthermore, FL-RHFCM maintains data privacy and security, as data is not shared among clients, unlike centralized methods. Moreover, this method is simpler, has faster training speed, and incurs reduced communication costs compared to deep learning models. Also, Fig. 6 indicates that FL-RHFCM converges for each client after the second round, demonstrating its efficiency in reaching stable predictions quickly. Thus, FL-RHFCM’s competitive performance and additional benefits make it a valuable method for spatio-temporal forecasting in federated learning environments. The combination of accuracy, privacy, and efficiency positions FL-RHFCM as a noteworthy approach in the landscape of forecasting methodologies. 5.1 Limitations 1. The number of clients involved in the experiments is relatively low. 2. It is not compared with complex state-of-the-art techniques such as GNNs in this area. 3. While federated experiments were conducted to evaluate our proposed approach, there needs to be more comparison with other federated learning approaches in the literature. Fig. 6. The NRMSE accuracy of the FL-RHFCM method for each client per round. Full size image 6 Conclusion and Future Works This study introduces the first proposal of a distributed framework for FCM-based forecasting methods called FL-RHFCM. FL-RHFCM integrates FL and centralized R-HFCM to predict both traffic speed and traffic flow. The experimental results illustrate that FL-RHFCM is a robust and efficient forecasting method, especially advantageous in scenarios requiring data privacy and decentralized learning. While centralized R-HFCM demonstrates the highest overall accuracy, FL-RHFCM’s competitive performance and additional benefits make it a valuable method in spatio-temporal time series forecasting scenarios. Since traffic datasets are high-dimensional and non-stationary time series, future work will extend FL-RHFCM to predict multivariate time series, considering these aspects. Notes 1.https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/fedesoriano/traffic-prediction-dataset/. 2.https://github.com/BuaaPercy/Traffic-DataSet-of-Beijing-Road. References Boukerche, A., Tao, Y., Sun, P.: Artificial intelligence-based vehicular traffic flow prediction methods for supporting intelligent transportation systems. Comput. Netw. 182, 107484 (2020) Google Scholar  Cunha, F., et al.: Vehicular Networks to Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 297–315. Springer Singapore, Singapore (2018) Google Scholar  Tedjopurnomo, D.A., Bao, Z., Zheng, B., Choudhury, F.M., Qin, A.K.: A survey on modern deep neural network for traffic prediction: Trends, methods and challenges. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 34(4), 1544–1561 (2020) Google Scholar  Jiang, W., Luo, J.: Graph neural network for traffic forecasting: a survey. Expert Syst. Appl. 207, 117921 (2022) Google Scholar  Wang, Z., Sun, P., Hu, Y., Boukerche, A.: A novel hybrid method for achieving accurate and timeliness vehicular traffic flow prediction in road networks. Comput. Commun. (2023) Google Scholar  Boukerche, A., Tao, Y., Sun, P.: Artificial intelligence-based vehicular traffic flow prediction methods for supporting intelligent transportation systems. Comput. Netw. 182, 107484 (2020) Google Scholar  Yin, X., Wu, G., Wei, J., Shen, Y., Qi, H., Yin, B.: A comprehensive survey on traffic prediction, ArXiv, abs/ arXiv: 2004.08555 (2020) Almeida, A., Brás, S., Oliveira, I., Sargento, S.: Vehicular traffic flow prediction using deployed traffic counters in a city. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 128, 429–442 (2022) Article  Google Scholar  Wang, X., Chen, C., Min, Y., He, J., Yang, B., Zhang, Y.L: Efficient metropolitan traffic prediction based on graph recurrent neural network, arXiv preprint, arXiv: 1811.00740 (2018) Wang, B., Luo, X., Zhang, F., Yuan, B., Bertozzi, A.L., Brantingham, P.J.: Graph-based deep modeling and real time forecasting of sparse spatio-temporal data, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1804.00684 (2018) Lu, Z., Lv, W., Cao, Y., Xie, Z., Peng, H., Du, B.: Lstm variants meet graph neural networks for road speed prediction. Neurocomputing 400, 34–45 (2020) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Cai, L., Janowicz, K., Mai, G., Yan, B., Zhu, R.: Traffic transformer: capturing the continuity and periodicity of time series for traffic forecasting. Trans. GIS 24(3), 736–755 (2020) Article  Google Scholar  Shi, X., Qi, H., Shen, Y., Wu, G., Yin, B.: A spatial-temporal attention approach for traffic prediction. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 22(8), 4909–4918 (2020) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Lucas, P.O., Orang, O., Silva, P.C., Mendes, E.M., Guimaraes, F.G.: A tutorial on fuzzy time series forecasting models: recent advances and challenges. Learn Nonlinear Models 19, 29–50 (2022) Article  Google Scholar  Orang, O., Silva, P.C.d.L., Guimarães, F.G.: Time series forecasting using fuzzy cognitive maps: a survey. Artifi. Intell. Rev. 1–62 (2022) Google Scholar  Kosko, B.: Fuzzy cognitive maps. Inter. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 24(1), 65–75 (1986). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020737386800402 Qin, D., Peng, Z., Wu, L.: Deep attention fuzzy cognitive maps for interpretable multivariate time series prediction. Knowl.-Based Syst. 275, 110700 (2023) Google Scholar  Wang, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Wu, J., et al.: Deep fuzzy cognitive maps for interpretable multivariate time series prediction. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. (2020) Google Scholar  Chmiel, W., Szwed, P.: Learning fuzzy cognitive map for traffic prediction using an evolutionary algorithm. In: Dziech, A., Leszczuk, M., Baran, R. (eds.) MCSS 2015. CCIS, vol. 566, pp. 195–209. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26404-2_16 Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar  Lv, Y., Duan, Y., Kang, W., Li, Z., Wang, F.-Y.: Traffic flow prediction with big data: a deep learning approach. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 16(2), 865–873 (2015) MATH  Google Scholar  Huang, H., Hu, Z., Wang, Y., Lu, Z., Wen, X., Fu, B.: Train a central traffic prediction model using local data: a spatio-temporal network based on federated learning. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 125, 106612 (2023) Google Scholar  Konecný, J., McMahan, H., Yu, F., Richtárik, P., Suresh, A., Bacon, D.: Federated learning: strategies for improving communication efficiency. CoRR, abs/ arXiv: 1610.05492 (2016) Qi, Y., Hossain, M.S., Nie, J., Li, X.: Privacy-preserving blockchain-based federated learning for traffic flow prediction. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 117, 328–337 (2021) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Hoyos, W., Aguilar, J., Toro, M.: Federated learning approaches for fuzzy cognitive maps to support clinical decision-making in dengue. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 123, 106371 (2023) Google Scholar  Salmeron, J., Arévalo, I.: Blind federated learning without initial model. J. Big Data 11, 04 (2024) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Orang, O., de Lima e Silva, P.C., Silva, R., Guimarães, F.G.: Randomized high order fuzzy cognitive maps as reservoir computing models: a first introduction and applications. Neurocomputing (2022) Google Scholar  Shaygan, M., Meese, C., Li, W., Zhao, X.G., Nejad, M.: Traffic prediction using artificial intelligence: review of recent advances and emerging opportunities. Transportation Res. Part C: Emerging Technol. 145, 103921 (2022) Google Scholar  Yang, X., Zou, Y., Tang, J., Liang, J., Ijaz, M.: Evaluation of short-term freeway speed prediction based on periodic analysis using statistical models and machine learning models. J. Adv. Trans. 2020, 1–16 (2020) MATH  Google Scholar  Yin, X., Wu, G., Wei, J., Shen, Y., Qi, H., Yin, B.: Deep learning on traffic prediction: methods, analysis, and future directions. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 23(6), 4927–4943 (2021) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Dougherty, M.S., Kirby, H.R., Boyle, R.D.: The use of neural networks to recognise and predict traffic congestion. Traffic Eng. Control 34(6), 311–314 (1993) MATH  Google Scholar  Zhang, L., Liu, Q., Yang, W., Wei, N., Dong, D.: An improved k-nearest neighbor model for short-term traffic flow prediction. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 96, 653–662 (2013) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Castro-Neto, M., Jeong, Y.-S., Jeong, M.-K., Han, L.D.: Online-svr for short-term traffic flow prediction under typical and atypical traffic conditions. Expert Syst. Appli. 36(3), Part 2, 6164–6173 (2009) Google Scholar  Soua, R., Koesdwiady, A., Karray, F.: Big-data-generated traffic flow prediction using deep learning and dempster-shafer theory. In: 2016 International joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), pp. 3195–3202. IEEE (2016) Google Scholar  Wang, J., Gu, Q., Wu, J., Liu, G., Xiong, Z.: Traffic speed prediction and congestion source exploration: A deep learning method. In: 2016 IEEE 16th international conference on data mining (ICDM), pp. 499–508. IEEE (2016) Google Scholar  Cui, Z., Ke, R., Pu, Z., Wang, Y.: Deep bidirectional and unidirectional lstm recurrent neural network for network-wide traffic speed prediction, arXiv preprint, arXiv: 1801.02143 (2018) He, Z., Chow, C.-Y., Zhang, J.-D.: Stann: a spatio-temporal attentive neural network for traffic prediction. IEEE Access 7, 4795–4806 (2018) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Li, Y., Yu, R., Shahabi, C., Liu, Y.: Diffusion convolutional recurrent neural network: Data-driven traffic forecasting, arXiv preprint, arXiv: 1707.01926 (2017) Pan, Z., Liang, Y., Wang, W., Yu, Y., Zheng, Y., Zhang, J.: Urban traffic prediction from spatio-temporal data using deep meta learning. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pp. 1720–1730 (2019) Google Scholar  An, J., Fu, L., Hu, M., Chen, W., Zhan, J.: A novel fuzzy-based convolutional neural network method to traffic flow prediction with uncertain traffic accident information. IEEE Access 7, 20 708–20 722 (2019) Google Scholar  Tang, J., Liu, F., Zou, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, Y.: An improved fuzzy neural network for traffic speed prediction considering periodic characteristic. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 18(9), 2340–2350 (2017) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Dimitriou, L., Tsekeris, T., Stathopoulos, A.: Adaptive hybrid fuzzy rule-based system approach for modeling and predicting urban traffic flow. Trans. Res. Part C: Emerging Technol. 16(5), 554–573 (2008) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Chen, W., An, J., Li, R., Fu, L., Xie, G., Bhuiyan, M.Z.A., Li, K.: A novel fuzzy deep-learning approach to traffic flow prediction with uncertain spatial-temporal data features. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 89, 78–88 (2018) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Zhang, S., Chen, Y., Zhang, W.: Spatiotemporal fuzzy-graph convolutional network model with dynamic feature encoding for traffic forecasting. Knowl.-Based Syst. 231, 107403 (2021) Google Scholar  Alkheder, S., Alomair, A.: Urban traffic prediction using metrological data with fuzzy logic, long short-term memory (lstm), and decision trees (dts). Nat. Hazards 111, 03 (2022) Article  Google Scholar  Liu, Y., Yu, J.J.Q., Kang, J., Niyato, D., Zhang, S.: Privacy-preserving traffic flow prediction: a federated learning approach. IEEE Internet Things J. 7(8), 7751–7763 (2020) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Zhang, C., Zhang, S., Yu, J.J.Q., Yu, S.: Fastgnn: a topological information protected federated learning approach for traffic speed forecasting. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 17(12), 8464–8474 (2021) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Zhang, C., Cui, L., Yu, S., James, J.: A communication-efficient federated learning scheme for iot-based traffic forecasting. IEEE Internet Things J. 9(14), 11918–11931 (2021) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Xia, M., Jin, D., Chen, J.: Short-term traffic flow prediction based on graph convolutional networks and federated learning. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 24(1), 1191–1203 (2023) Article  MATH  Google Scholar  Qi, T., Chen, L., Li, G., Li, Y., Wang, C.: Fedagcn: A traffic flow prediction framework based on federated learning and asynchronous graph convolutional network. Appl. Soft Comput. 138, 110175 (2023) Google Scholar  Orang, O., Silva, R., de Lima e Silva, P.C., Guimarães, F.G.: Solar energy forecasting with fuzzy time series using high-order fuzzy cognitive maps. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pp. 1–8 (2020) Google Scholar  Download references Acknowledgment This work was partially funded by grant APQ-00426-22, Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), grant 2023/00721-1, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), and grant 312682/2021-2, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). Author information Authors and Affiliations Graduate Program in Electrical Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil Felipe A. R. da Silva Federal Institute of Northern Minas Gerais, Januaria, Brazil Petrônio C. L. Silva Department of Computer Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil Omid Orang, Petrônio C. L. Silva, Pedro H. S. S. Barros, Heitor S. Ramos & Frederico G. Guimarães Authors Omid OrangView author publications Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar Felipe A. R. da SilvaView author publications Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar Petrônio C. L. SilvaView author publications Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar Pedro H. S. S. BarrosView author publications Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar Heitor S. RamosView author publications Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar Frederico G. GuimarãesView author publications Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar Corresponding author Correspondence to Petrônio C. L. Silva . Editor information Editors and Affiliations Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, Brazil Aline Paes Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos, Brazil Filipe A. N. Verri Rights and permissions Reprints and permissions Copyright information © 2025 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG About this paper Cite this paper Orang, O., da Silva, F.A.R., Silva, P.C.L., Barros, P.H.S.S., Ramos, H.S., Guimarães, F.G. (2025). Traffic Forecasting Using Federated Randomized High-Order Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. In: Paes, A., Verri, F.A.N. (eds) Intelligent Systems. BRACIS 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 15413. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-79032-4_31 Download citation .RIS .ENW .BIB DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-79032-4_31 Published: 30 January 2025 Publisher Name: Springer, Cham Print ISBN: 978-3-031-79031-7 Online ISBN: 978-3-031-79032-4 eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0) Share this paper Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy shareable link to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative Keywords Traffic Prediction Federated Learning Randomized High-order Fuzzy Cognitive Maps Echo State Network Least Squares Publish with us Policies and ethics Profiles Petrônio C. L. Silva View author profile Pedro H. S. S. Barros View author profile Search Search by keyword or author Search Navigation Find a journal Publish with us Track your research Discover content Journals A-Z Books A-Z Publish with us Journal finder Publish your research Language editing Open access publishing Products and services Our products Librarians Societies Partners and advertisers Our brands Springer Nature Portfolio BMC Palgrave Macmillan Apress Discover Your privacy choices/Manage cookies Your US state privacy rights Accessibility statement Terms and conditions Privacy policy Help and support Legal notice Cancel contracts here 129.74.145.123 Hesburgh Library ER Unit (3005732405) - NorthEast Research Libraries (NERL) (8200828607) - NERL - TA Account (3006206169) - University of Notre Dame Hesburgh Library (3000184373) © 2025 Springer Nature