STanHop: Sparse Tandem Hopfield Model for Memory-Enhanced Time Series Prediction
Dennis Wu, Jerry Yao-Chieh Hu, Weijian Li, Bo-Yu Chen, Han Liu
OpenReview ground truth
TL;DR — We introduce STanHop-Net, a novel time series prediction model, combines a Hopfield-based block with external memory modules, enhancing learning, rapid response to sudden events, and superior theoretical guarantees and empirical performance.
Abstract
We present **STanHop-Net** (**S**parse **Tan**dem **Hop**field **Net**work) for multivariate time series prediction with memory-enhanced capabilities. At the heart of our approach is **STanHop**, a novel Hopfield-based neural network block, which sparsely learns and stores both temporal and cross-series representations in a data-dependent fashion. In essence, STanHop sequentially learns temporal representation and cross-series representation using two tandem sparse Hopfield layers. Additionally, STanHop incorporates two external memory modules: **Plug-and-Play** and **Tune-and-Play** for train-less and task-aware memory enhancements, respectively. They allow StanHop-Net to swiftly respond to sudden events. Methodologically, we construct the STanHop-Net by stacking STanHop blocks in a hierarchical fashion, enabling multi-resolution feature extraction with resolution-specific sparsity. Theoretically, we introduce a unified construction (**Generalized Sparse Modern Hopfield Model**) for both dense and sparse modern Hopfield models and show that it endows a tighter memory retrieval error compared to the dense counterpart without sacrificing memory capacity. Empirically, we validate the efficacy of STanHop-Net on many settings: time series prediction, fast test-time adaptation, and strongly correlated time series prediction.
Author context
Most prolific author: 4 submissions (credibility 1.00).
No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).
Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.
Ranking trajectory
Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.
Battle history — 34 comparisons
Ranked above opponent in 60% of matchups.
Judge assessments
Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)