A GNN That Fills in 95% of Paris's Missing Traffic Counts — Hour by Hour, Street by Street

Graph neural network reconstructs hourly traffic on all 32,163 Paris road segments using only 4.9% sensor coverage. R²=0.89 interpolation, 0.74 extrapolation. Frozen model holds on unseen 2026 data.

Imagine you have a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, but you can only see 49 of the pieces — scattered unevenly, mostly along the edges. Now reconstruct the full picture, not once, but every hour for years. That's what this paper does with traffic in Paris: 1,573 permanent counters on a 32,163-segment road network, and a graph neural network that fills in the other 95.1% of segments with enough accuracy to feed downstream air quality models. The committed claim: a GNN adapted from the GNNUI architecture can reconstruct hourly traffic volumes on every road segment of a real city from a sparse, non-random counting network — and the reconstruction is good enough for micro-scale pollution modeling. This is not the first traffic imputation paper, but it is the first to do it at full-city scale on a real sparse sensor network (not a simulated one), with rigorous spatial cross-validation that distinguishes interpolation from extrapolation. The architecture sits in the message-passing GNN family, operating on a junction graph where each road segment becomes an edge with both directions summed. The key structural choice is a traffic climatology offset inside a zero-inflated negative-binomial likelihood — essentially, the model learns deviations from a seasonal baseline rather than raw counts. This is smart engineering: traffic is highly periodic, so letting the model focus on residuals from the seasonal pattern concentrates learning capacity where it matters. Road attributes, time-of-day cycles, and the live state of which counters are reporting proved to be the dominant features. Weather — often assumed important — showed no significant effect. Validation is where this paper earns trust. Eight-fold spatial cross-validation splits the city into districts, withholding all counters in a district at test time. This creates two regimes: interpolation (withheld counter surrounded by instrumented neighbors, R²=0.89, error ~25% of mean flow) and extrapolation (entire district has no counters, R²=0.74, error ~33% of mean flow). The distinction matters because most traffic papers only report interpolation. The authors also note honestly that local streets — which have few counters — show ~50% relative errors, a candid acknowledgment that sensor sparsity bites hardest where you'd most want data. The ablation study reveals useful structure. The climatology offset helps extrapolation more than interpolation, confirming that seasonal priors are most valuable when you're furthest from observed data. The masking rate during training — the fraction of counters hidden to simulate the prediction task — is the only hyperparameter with a clear effect, which is reassuring: the model isn't sensitive to a zoo of tuning choices. A frozen model tested on January–August 2026 data (outside the training window) maintained error levels within the band of previous years, suggesting genuine temporal generalization rather than overfitting to the training period. The downstream motivation — air quality modeling — frames the practical bar. Micro-scale pollution models need hourly segment-level traffic as input; without it, they default to crude annual-average-daily-traffic estimates or expensive manual campaigns. This GNN pipeline, if it generalizes to other cities with comparable sensor density, could make hourly pollution maps feasible for any city that already has a few hundred loop counters. That's the real unlock: not a better traffic model per se, but a prerequisite for urban environmental monitoring at scale. The honest gap: Paris intra-muros is dense, relatively small (~105 km²), and has 4.9% sensor coverage concentrated on major roads. The paper does not test on a city with sparser coverage, different topology (American grid vs. European radial), or fundamentally different traffic patterns. Whether the architecture and the climatology trick transfer to, say, Houston or Lagos is an open question the authors don't pretend to answer. The most likely reason this wasn't tested is data access — comparable open sensor networks at this density are rare — not that it was tried and failed.