pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.09954 · v1 · pith:FX3QFVJDnew · submitted 2026-06-08 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI

Does Normalization Choice Matter for Causal Large Time-Series Models?

Samy-Melwan Vilhes , Gilles Gasso , Mokhtar Z Alaya (LMAC) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 17:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AI
keywords time-series forecastingnormalizationcausal modelstransformerspatchingautoregressive trainingnon-stationarity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Normalization choice significantly influences training convergence and forecasting performance in causal large time-series models.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper evaluates normalization strategies inside transformer-based models for time-series forecasting that rely on causal autoregressive training and patching. Real-world signals contain non-stationarities that normalization is meant to correct, yet standard methods risk leaking future information into training. The authors compare standard normalization against causal variants and statistics drawn only from initial observations. They demonstrate that the specific choice alters both how fast models converge during training and how accurate their forecasts become. Readers focused on deploying these models on mixed collections of signals would therefore need to treat normalization as a first-order design decision rather than an afterthought.

Core claim

In evaluations of transformer-based large time-series models trained with patching and efficient causal strategy, normalization choice significantly influences both training convergence and forecasting performance. Recent alternatives, including causal normalization and statistics computed from initial observations, have been proposed to address potential information leakage, but their practical implications remain insufficiently understood.

What carries the argument

Normalization strategies (standard, causal, and initial-observation variants) applied within causal autoregressive transformer training that uses patching on heterogeneous time-series.

If this is right

  • Selecting an appropriate normalization method can measurably speed up training convergence.
  • Forecast accuracy varies with the normalization approach even when the underlying model architecture stays the same.
  • Causal normalization and initial-observation statistics provide viable alternatives that reduce future leakage while still affecting performance.
  • Normalization must be treated as an explicit hyper-parameter when training on non-stationary heterogeneous signals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Development workflows for these models should include systematic normalization ablations rather than defaulting to a single scheme.
  • The same sensitivity may appear in other causal sequential architectures that process non-stationary data.
  • Design of new causal training procedures could incorporate normalization as a tunable component rather than a fixed preprocessing step.

Load-bearing premise

Observed differences in convergence and performance are driven primarily by the normalization method rather than by interactions with the specific patching or causal training implementation.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison that keeps patching and causal training details fixed while swapping only the normalization method and finds no measurable change in convergence speed or forecast accuracy would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.09954 by Gilles Gasso, Mokhtar Z Alaya (LMAC), Samy-Melwan Vilhes.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Training loss for 200K-225K steps. 3.2 FORECASTING PERFORMANCE Across all test signals, context lengths, and forecasting horizons, two strategies seem to outper￾form the others: Causal+sinh−1 and Prefix@k, in terms of MAE, RMSE, MASE (Eq. 24) and SQL (Eq. 25) as reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Inference time versus horizon length h, comparing normalization strategies and the use of key–value caching in Causal+sinh−1 across different context lengths. Similar behavior is observed without the sinh−1 transformation. A.4 MODEL ARCHITECTURE We employ a Transformer architecture optimized for patch-based time-series forecasting. The model is trained to generate probabilistic forecasts, outputting the me… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Forecast for each normalization strategy on a synthetic non-stationary sinusoidal signal at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pairwise skill scores for each normalization strategy, aggregated over context lengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Forecasting performance across prediction horizons on the Synthetic dataset for four con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Forecasting performance across prediction horizons on the UTSD-12G dataset for four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Forecasting performance across prediction horizons on the GIFT-Eval dataset for four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Scaled Quantile Loss as a forecasting performance metric across prediction horizons on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of normalization strategies on a simple increasing sinusoidal. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of patches 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Error (MSE) Normalization Error vs Number of Patches Seen RevIN Error Causal Error Prefix@k Error (k=8) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Training loss for 200K-225K steps. Considering the forecasting performance, the non-normalized model achieves the worst results across all metrics and context lengths, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Pairwise skill scores for each normalization strategy, aggregated over context lengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large models for time-series forecasting have been emerged as a promising paradigm for training models on heterogeneous collections of signals. These models typically rely on causal autoregressive architectures, where each observation is sequentially predicted from past. In practice, real-world time-series exhibit non-stationarities, which significantly influence predictive performance. To mitigate this, normalization is commonly employed. However, in efficient causal settings it might induce information leakage from future observations during training. Recent alternatives, including causal normalization and statistics computed from initial observations, have been proposed to address this issue, but their practical implications remain insufficiently understood. In this work, we evaluate normalization strategies for transformer-based large time-series models trained with patching and efficient causal strategy. We showcase that normalization choice significantly influences both training convergence and forecasting performance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates normalization strategies (including causal normalization and initial-observation statistics) for transformer-based large time-series forecasting models that employ patching and efficient causal autoregressive training. It claims that normalization choice significantly influences both training convergence and forecasting performance in the presence of non-stationarities and potential information leakage.

Significance. If the empirical results hold after proper controls, the work would highlight a practical design choice that affects reliability in large causal time-series models, offering guidance for avoiding leakage while maintaining performance on heterogeneous signals.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central empirical claim that normalization choice 'significantly influences' convergence and performance is stated without any reference to datasets, number of runs, statistical tests, or ablations that isolate normalization from interactions with the patching mechanism and causal mask (e.g., per-patch statistics under the mask or initial-observation boundaries). This directly undermines assessment of whether normalization is the primary driver.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it briefly enumerated the specific normalization variants compared and the evaluation metrics used for convergence and forecasting.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and the opportunity to clarify the presentation of our empirical claims. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central empirical claim that normalization choice 'significantly influences' convergence and performance is stated without any reference to datasets, number of runs, statistical tests, or ablations that isolate normalization from interactions with the patching mechanism and causal mask (e.g., per-patch statistics under the mask or initial-observation boundaries). This directly undermines assessment of whether normalization is the primary driver.

    Authors: The abstract is a high-level summary of results that are fully detailed in the body of the paper. Sections 4 and 5 report experiments on multiple heterogeneous time-series datasets, with performance metrics averaged over 5 random seeds per configuration and accompanied by standard-error bars. We include direct ablations that vary only the normalization strategy while holding the patching mechanism, causal mask, and autoregressive training fixed; these appear in Figures 3–5 and Tables 2–4, with per-patch and initial-observation variants explicitly compared. Nevertheless, we agree that the abstract would benefit from greater specificity. We will revise it to state the number of datasets, the number of runs, and the existence of the isolation ablations, thereby making the empirical basis clearer without lengthening the abstract substantially. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical evaluation with no derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical study comparing normalization strategies for transformer-based time-series models under patching and causal training. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or predictions are present that could reduce to inputs by construction. The central claim is a direct statement of observed differences in convergence and performance from experiments, with no load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Purely empirical study; no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, axioms, or new entities are introduced or required by the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5663 in / 870 out tokens · 19578 ms · 2026-06-27T17:24:35.904905+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10393. Abdul Fatir Ansari, Lorenzo Stella, Caner Turkmen, Xiyuan Zhang, Pedro Mercado, Huibin Shen, Oleksandr Shchur, Syama Sundar Rangapuram, Sebastian Pineda Arango, Shubham Kapoor, Jasper Zschiegner, Danielle C. Maddix, Hao Wang, Michael W. Mahoney, Kari Torkkola, An- drew Gordon Wilson, Michael Bohlke-Schneider, and Yuya...

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07815. Abdul Fatir Ansari, Oleksandr Shchur, Jaris K ¨uken, Andreas Auer, Boran Han, Pedro Mercado, Syama Sundar Rangapuram, Huibin Shen, Lorenzo Stella, Xiyuan Zhang, Mononito Goswami, Shubham Kapoor, Danielle C. Maddix, Pablo Guerron, Tony Hu, Junming Yin, Nick Erick- son, Prateek Mutalik Desai, Hao Wang, Huzefa Rangwala, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Andreas Auer, Patrick Podest, Daniel Klotz, Sebastian B¨ock, G¨unter Klambauer, and Sepp Hochre- iter

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15821. Andreas Auer, Patrick Podest, Daniel Klotz, Sebastian B¨ock, G¨unter Klambauer, and Sepp Hochre- iter. Tirex: Zero-shot forecasting across long and short horizons with enhanced in-context learn- ing,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23719. Ben Cohen, Emaad Khwaja, Youssef Doubli, Salahidine Lemaachi, Chris Lettieri, Charles Mas- son, Hugo Miccinilli, Elise Ram´e, Qiqi Ren, Afshin Rostamizadeh, Jean Ogier du Terrail, Anna- Monica Toon, Kan Wang, Stephan Xie, Zongzhe Xu, Viktoriya Zhukova, David Asker, Ameet Talwalkar, and Othmane Abou-Amal. This time is ...

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Abhimanyu Das, Weihao Kong, Rajat Sen, and Yichen Zhou

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14766. Abhimanyu Das, Weihao Kong, Rajat Sen, and Yichen Zhou. A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting,

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Janez Demˇsar

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10688. Janez Demˇsar. Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets.The Journal of Machine learning research, 7(1):1–30,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    , Huang , Long L

    Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400704369. doi: 10.1145/3627673.3679931. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3627673.3679931. Wei Gao, Xinyu Zhou, Peng Sun, Tianwei Zhang, and Yonggang Wen. Rethinking key-value cache compression techniques for large language model serving,

    work page doi:10.1145/3627673.3679931

  8. [8]

    Lars Graf, Thomas Ortner, Stanisław Wo ´zniak, and Angeliki Pantazi

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2503.24000. Lars Graf, Thomas Ortner, Stanisław Wo ´zniak, and Angeliki Pantazi. Flowstate: Sampling rate invariant time series forecasting,

    arXiv

  9. [9]

    5 ICLR 2026 Workshop on Time Series in the Age of Large Models (TSALM) Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, and Abhinav Pandey et al

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05287. 5 ICLR 2026 Workshop on Time Series in the Age of Large Models (TSALM) Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, and Abhinav Pandey et al. The llama 3 herd of models,

    arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Taesung Kim, Jinhee Kim, Yunwon Tae, Cheonbok Park, Jang-Ho Choi, and Jaegul Choo

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783. Taesung Kim, Jinhee Kim, Yunwon Tae, Cheonbok Park, Jang-Ho Choi, and Jaegul Choo. Re- versible instance normalization for accurate time-series forecasting against distribution shift. In International Conference on Learning Representations,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Yong Liu, Haoran Zhang, Chenyu Li, Xiangdong Huang, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long

    URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11698. Yong Liu, Haoran Zhang, Chenyu Li, Xiangdong Huang, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Timer: Generative pre-trained transformers are large time series models,

    arXiv

  12. [12]

    Yuqi Nie, Nam H Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.02368. Yuqi Nie, Nam H Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam. A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers. In The Eleventh International Confer- ence on Learning Representations ,

    arXiv

  13. [13]

    Noam Shazeer

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10925. Noam Shazeer. Glu variants improve transformer,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Oleksandr Shchur, Abdul Fatir Ansari, Caner Turkmen, Lorenzo Stella, Nick Erickson, Pablo Guer- ron, Michael Bohlke-Schneider, and Yuyang Wang

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2002.05202. Oleksandr Shchur, Abdul Fatir Ansari, Caner Turkmen, Lorenzo Stella, Nick Erickson, Pablo Guer- ron, Michael Bohlke-Schneider, and Yuyang Wang. fev-bench: A realistic benchmark for time series forecasting,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  15. [15]

    Xiaoming Shi, Shiyu Wang, Yuqi Nie, Dianqi Li, Zhou Ye, Qingsong Wen, and Ming Jin

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.26468. Xiaoming Shi, Shiyu Wang, Yuqi Nie, Dianqi Li, Zhou Ye, Qingsong Wen, and Ming Jin. Time- moe: Billion-scale time series foundation models with mixture of experts,

    arXiv

  16. [16]

    Jianlin Su, Yu Lu, Shengfeng Pan, Ahmed Murtadha, Bo Wen, and Yunfeng Liu

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.16040. Jianlin Su, Yu Lu, Shengfeng Pan, Ahmed Murtadha, Bo Wen, and Yunfeng Liu. Roformer: En- hanced transformer with rotary position embedding,

    arXiv

  17. [17]

    Bartosz Uniejewski and Rafał Weron

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2104.09864. Bartosz Uniejewski and Rafał Weron. Efficient forecasting of electricity spot prices with expert and lasso models. Energies, 11:2039, 08

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2039

  18. [18]

    Uniejewski and R

    doi: 10.3390/en11082039. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st In- ternational Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS’17, Red Hook, NY , USA,

    work page doi:10.3390/en11082039

  19. [19]

    A A PPENDIX The code is available at https://github.com/vilhess/normalizer

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.02592. A A PPENDIX The code is available at https://github.com/vilhess/normalizer. A.1 F ORMALIZATION OF THE PROBLEM SETTING We consider the task of univariate time-series forecasting using patch-based representations. Let a time-series be partitioned into a sequence of patches x = (xP1 , xP2 , . . . ,xPN ), (6) 6 ICLR 2026...

    arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    8 ICLR 2026 Workshop on Time Series in the Age of Large Models (TSALM) Table 2: Critical difference diagram (Dem ˇsar,

    2026

  21. [21]

    Vanilla- based strategies, for each new patch appended to the context, require recomputing the normalization statistics and re-normalizing all past patches, which prevents the use of key–value caching. How- ever, it is possible to consider some relaxations for using key–value caching with these strategies, such as editing the normalization statistics not ...

    2026

  22. [22]

    Standard residual connections are used throughout the stack, and temporal causality is strictly enforced via a triangular attention mask

    to inject relative temporal information into the at- tention mechanism. Standard residual connections are used throughout the stack, and temporal causality is strictly enforced via a triangular attention mask. Table 3: Model configuration Component Value Patch size L 32 observations Max context N 32 patch (1024 observations) Forecast horizon 1 patch (32 o...

    2048

  23. [23]

    In addition, we adopt the KernelSynth strategy from Ansari et al

    to increase pattern diversity. In addition, we adopt the KernelSynth strategy from Ansari et al. (2024) to sample Gaussian-process signals with mixtures of kernels (e.g., RBF, periodic, linear), sweeping hyperparameters (amplitudes, frequencies/periods, length scales, noise) to cover a broad range of dynamics. Real-World Dataset. For real-world signals, w...

    2024

  24. [24]

    The implementation uses PyTorch Lightning with Distributed Data Parallel

    (23) A.5.3 S ETUP Training was performed on 4 NVIDIA V100 GPUs. The implementation uses PyTorch Lightning with Distributed Data Parallel. We have a global batch size of 1024 and train for 225k steps in total. We use the AdamW optimizer, a learning rate starting at10−5 with a linear warm-up over 10k steps until 5.10−4, followed by cosine decay to 10−5 unti...

    2025

  25. [25]

    Thus, SkillScore(s, r) quantifies the average relative error reduction achieved by strategy s compared to the reference strategy r across datasets

    The skill score takes values in (−∞, 1]: a score of 1 corresponds to perfect performance (i.e., zero error), a score of 0 indicates performance equivalent to the reference strategy, and negative values indicate worse performance than the reference. Thus, SkillScore(s, r) quantifies the average relative error reduction achieved by strategy s compared to th...

    2026

  26. [26]

    The performance of Causal+ sinh−1 improves as the context length increases, eventually surpassing both RevIN+ sinh−1 and RevIN at a context length 14 ICLR 2026 Workshop on Time Series in the Age of Large Models (TSALM) 32 64 96 128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384 416 448 480 512 Forecast Horizon 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000MAE MAE on Artificial...

    2026

  27. [27]

    For a context length of 1024, the models again perform similarly on average across horizons, with the exception of Prefix@k+sinh−1, which shows consistently degraded performance across all horizons. 15 ICLR 2026 Workshop on Time Series in the Age of Large Models (TSALM) 32 64 96 128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384 416 448 480 512 Forecast Horizon 275 300 ...

    2026

  28. [28]

    Our analysis is restricted to mean—variance-based normalization strategies, which remain the dominant choice in current large-scale time-series models

    trained under comparable conditions. Our analysis is restricted to mean—variance-based normalization strategies, which remain the dominant choice in current large-scale time-series models. Alternative normaliza- tion families are therefore not considered in this work. 19 ICLR 2026 Workshop on Time Series in the Age of Large Models (TSALM) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...

    2026