Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

How Effective are Large Time Series Models in Hydrology? A Study on Water Level Forecasting in Everglades

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that Chronos, a pretrained time-series foundation model used in zero-shot mode, achieves the lowest MAE and RMSE at all five Everglades stations and all four lead times, plus the highest SEDI for extreme water levels.

desk verdict Useful benchmark with a big zero-shot claim from Chronos, but the comparison may conflate model class with input information, and the statistics are thinner than the prose. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01415 v2 pith:TGCJPDZN submitted 2025-05-02 cs.LG

Rahuul Rangaraj , Jimeng Shi , Azam Shirali , Rajendra Paudel , Yanzhao Wu , Giri Narasimhan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords timeseriesfoundationmodelshydrologywaterlevelforecastingEvergladeszero-shotinferenceChronosextremeeventpredictionbenchmarkstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether pretrained foundation models for time series can forecast Everglades water levels without task-specific retraining, and reports that one of them, Chronos, does more than hold its own: it produces the lowest mean absolute error and root mean squared error at all five stations and all four lead times (7, 14, 21, and 28 days) studied. The same model also earns the highest Symmetric Extremal Dependence Index (SEDI) scores, meaning it is best at flagging extreme high and low water levels. The other four foundation models largely underperform, so the result is not that foundation models in general win, but that this particular pretrained model transfers well to a specialized hydrological setting. A sympathetic reading of the paper's proposed explanation is that Chronos's pretraining corpus included daily U.S. weather-station measurements whose patterns resemble Everglades hydrology. If correct, the result would let operational forecasters deploy a single off-the-shelf model without collecting and fitting training data for each new station.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing artifact is Chronos's tokenizer: it scales and quantizes raw time-series values into a fixed vocabulary and trains an encoder-decoder Transformer with a cross-entropy loss, effectively learning a 'language of time series' that can be applied to a new series without fine-tuning. This mechanism is what lets a model pretrained on general time-series data transfer to Everglades water levels in zero-shot inference. The paper's benchmark harness supplies the contrast: 37 variables of daily hydrologic data, a 100-day input window, five stations, four forecast horizons, and MAE/RMSE for overall accuracy plus SEDI for extreme-event skill.

What would settle it

Rerun the five-station, four-horizon benchmark under a controlled input ablation: give every model either the full 37-variable context or only the target station's water-level history, then compare Chronos with the best task-specific models on MAE, RMSE, and SEDI. If Chronos no longer leads at all stations and lead times in both settings, the paper's central claim that zero-shot Chronos is uniformly superior is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Chronos, a pretrained time-series foundation model used in a zero-shot mode, significantly outperforms all 12 task-specific deep-learning models on daily water-level forecasting in the Everglades. In the reported tables, Chronos has the lowest MAE and RMSE for every station (NP205, P33, G620, NESRS1, NESRS2) and every horizon (7, 14, 21, 28 days), with its advantage persisting as the lead time lengthens; at the 28-day horizon it also achieves the highest SEDI at every station, with overall SEDI 0.710 versus the next-best 0.659. The paper additionally reports that the other foundation models (TimeGPT, TimesFM, Timer, Moirai) are not consistently competitive, and that among task-specific models NBEATS, TSMixer, PatchTST, and RMoK lead their architectural families. The authors attribute Chronos's edge to its tokenization of time series into a quantized vocabulary plus pretraining on data correlated with Everglades conditions, while other foundation models were pretrained on less similar data.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes every model saw the same information, but the paper does not state which variables the foundation models actually received; if they saw only the target station's water-level history while task-specific models saw all 37 variables, the reported win may partly reflect an input-information mismatch rather than model superiority.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operational water-level forecasting in the Everglades could adopt Chronos immediately for 7- to 28-day horizons, since zero-shot inference matched or beat every trained model at every station tested.
  • Forecast horizon should guide model choice: linear models such as NLinear and DLinear do well short-term but decay sharply by 28 days, while NBEATS and PatchTST hold up better on longer leads.
  • Extreme-value warnings could improve in resolution: Chronos posts the highest SEDI for extreme high/low water levels, although all models still miss abrupt shifts in the underlying dynamics.
  • Pretraining data distribution matters more than model scale: Chronos's win alongside the weak results of TimesFM, Timer, and Moirai suggests that exposure to similar weather/hydrology data, not parameter count, drives transfer.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The fairest test of the paper's claim would feed every model the identical input set—either all 37 variables for all models or only the target station's water-level history for all models—because five of the foundation models are univariate by design; until that ablation is run, the size of Chronos's true advantage is uncertain.
  • If the controlled comparison still favors Chronos, the same zero-shot design could be carried to other wetland or riverine systems where station-specific training data are scarce, making this benchmark a template for evaluating foundation models in environmental forecasting.
  • Because Chronos's pretraining included U.S. weather-station records, a natural boundary condition is geography: its advantage may shrink outside regions whose hydroclimatology resembles that corpus, which could be tested by rerunning the benchmark on stations in markedly different climates.
  • The SEDI ranking depends on the chosen 10%/90% extreme thresholds; testing other quantiles (e.g., 5%/95%) would reveal whether Chronos's extreme-event skill is robust or threshold-sensitive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript evaluates 12 task-specific deep learning time-series models and 5 pretrained time-series foundation models for daily water-level forecasting at five Everglades stations, with lead times of 7, 14, 21, and 28 days and a nominal 100-day input window. Using MAE, RMSE, and a metric the paper calls SEDI, it reports that the zero-shot foundation model Chronos achieves the lowest MAE and RMSE at all stations and lead times and the highest extreme-event scores, while most other foundation models underperform and task-specific models vary by architecture. The paper also examines input-length sensitivity, model size versus accuracy/efficiency, and possible reasons for Chronos's success, and it provides a GitHub repository for code and data.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would be a practically useful benchmark showing that a general pretrained time-series model can outperform task-specific models trained on hydrologic data in zero-shot water-level forecasting. The study covers a real-world dataset, a large model zoo, multiple lead times, and an explicit attempt to evaluate extreme events, and the authors have made code and data available. However, the comparison is not fully specified as an experiment (univariate versus multivariate inputs are not documented), the extreme-event metric is misidentified, and the word 'significantly' is used without statistical support. These issues must be resolved before the central ranking claim can be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1 and Table 4] The experimental protocol for foundation models is not specified. Section 3.1 says task-specific models use 'all variables from the previous 100 days' and foundation models run 'with the same setting' in zero-shot inference, but Chronos, TimesFM, Timer, and TimeGPT are univariate predictors, so they cannot receive the 37-channel matrix X_{t-w+1:t} in Eq. (1). The paper never states which single series is fed to each foundation model, nor whether Moirai receives a flattened multivariate input. Consequently, Table 1's comparison (e.g., lead-28 Overall MAE 0.088 for Chronos versus 0.176 for NBEATS) may conflate model-class differences with input-information differences, and the RQ1 claim is not reproducible as written. Please state the exact input features for every foundation model and, ideally, add a controlled variant: task-specific models trained on the same univariate target history, or a multivariate-capable foundation model given the same 37 variables.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (4), Table 2] Equation (4) is not the Symmetric Extremal Dependence Index (SEDI); it is the pooled hit rate for correctly predicted upper and lower extremes divided by the observed number of extreme events. SEDI is a function of both hit rate and false-alarm rate, not this ratio. Therefore the values in Table 2 labeled 'SEDI' do not measure what the paper claims, and the RQ3 conclusion that 'Chronos significantly outperforms' on extremes is not supported by the reported statistic. Please replace Eq. (4) with the correct SEDI definition and report the associated hit and false-alarm rates, or rename the metric and qualify the extreme-value conclusions accordingly.
  3. [§4 (RQ1, RQ3), Abstract] The word 'significantly' is used repeatedly to describe Chronos's advantage, but the paper reports only point estimates and the reproducibility checklist's claim that 'the significance of any improvement ... is judged using appropriate statistical tests' is not backed by any reported test, confidence interval, or run-to-run variation. With 211 test days and five stations, a paired Diebold-Mariano test or a bootstrap over station/lead-time blocks would be feasible and would justify the wording. At minimum, 'significantly outperforms' should be replaced with 'achieves lower point estimates' unless a statistical test is provided.
  4. [Table 1, TSMixer row] The Overall-column values for TSMixer at lead time 14 appear inconsistent with the station-level values. The five station MAEs are 0.213, 0.100, 0.115, 0.089, and 0.082, whose mean is approximately 0.120, but the table reports Overall MAE 0.204; the reported overall RMSE of 0.181 is likewise hard to reconcile with the station RMSEs. Please define how the Overall column is computed (station-length weighting or per-sample pooling) and correct the entry if it is a typographical error. This matters because Overall values are used in the summary comparisons and the table is the central evidence for RQ1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] TSMixerx is presented as a separate model and cited to Chen et al. 2023, but that reference introduces TSMixer; please provide the correct source for the 'x' variant.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (4)] The notation yp_up and yp_low is undefined, and the sentence 'The tests, ŷ < yp_up and y < yp_up judge whether the predicted and observed values are extremes' is garbled; please rewrite the threshold definitions clearly.
  3. [Reproducibility Checklist and Appendix F] The checklist states that the paper reports the number of algorithm runs per result and lists all final hyperparameters, but the body gives no seeds or number of runs; Table 4 lists only learning rate, optimizer, and library/API. Please reconcile the checklist with the actual text.
  4. [§5 (Related Work)] The text says 'We have also experimented with SVM and XGBoost, but the results were relatively poor,' yet no results for these models appear in the main text or tables; either include them in the evaluation or remove the claim.
  5. [Appendix A.2] The datum adjustment values (e.g., +1.51 ft for G620, +1.54 ft for S333T) are stated without a source or uncertainty; please document where these values come from and how they were applied to all stations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Chronos result is an external zero-shot benchmark with no fitted parameters or self-citation chain.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical evaluation, not a derivation. The central claim (Chronos achieves the lowest MAE/RMSE and highest SEDI) comes from running an externally pretrained checkpoint (amazon/chronos-bolt-small) in zero-shot inference against trained baselines on public hydrological data from EDEN and DBHYDRO. No equation in the paper defines the outcome in terms of the inputs; Table 1 and Table 2 are measured results, not identities. The paper's own 'possible reason' for Chronos's success (pretraining on correlated weather data) is explicitly offered as a hypothesis, not derived from the benchmark. Self-citations such as Shi et al. 2023b and 2025, Paudel et al. 2020, and Zheng et al. 2025 are used for metrics, background, and dataset context, but none is load-bearing for the Chronos result. The plausible concern that Section 3.1 gives task-specific models 37 input variables without specifying which features the univariate foundation models received, and that Appendix F also does not state this, is a reproducibility and attribution risk about what was compared, not a circularity: it does not make the result equivalent to an input by construction. Under the stated rules, that concern belongs to correctness risk, not to circularity scoring.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical benchmark with no new mathematical derivation, no new model, and no free parameters fitted to the target data. The load-bearing assumptions are about experimental comparability and about the correctness of the evaluation metric, both of which are questionable and should be justified or corrected.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption All 17 models are evaluated under equivalent forecasting settings (same input length, same horizon, same target variables).
    Section 3.1 Task Settings claims foundation models run 'with the same setting' as task-specific models, but foundation models are univariate while task-specific models receive 37 variables. The equivalence is asserted, not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Eq. (4) correctly defines the Symmetric Extremal Dependence Index (SEDI).
    Eq. (4) computes a ratio of correct extreme detections to total extreme events, which is a hit rate, not the standard SEDI defined by Ferro and Stephenson (2011). The paper uses this formula to produce Table 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Effective are Large Time Series Models in Hydrology? A Study on Water Level Forecasting in Everglades." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TGCJPDZN

@misc{pith2026250501415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Effective are Large Time Series Models in Hydrology? A Study on Water Level Forecasting in Everglades},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TGCJPDZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01415}
}
read the original abstract

The Everglades play a crucial role in flood and drought regulation, water resource planning, and ecosystem management in the surrounding regions. However, traditional physics-based and statistical methods for predicting water levels often face significant challenges, including high computational costs and limited adaptability to diverse or unforeseen conditions. Recent advancements in large time series models have demonstrated the potential to address these limitations, with state-of-the-art deep learning and foundation models achieving remarkable success in time series forecasting across various domains. Despite this progress, their application to critical environmental systems, such as the Everglades, remains underexplored. In this study, we fill the gap by investigating twelve task-specific models and five time series foundation models across six categories for a real-world application focused on water level prediction in the Everglades. Our primary results show that the foundation model Chronos significantly outperforms all other models while the remaining foundation models exhibit relatively poor performance. We also noticed that the performance of task-specific models varies with the model architectures, and discussed the possible reasons. We hope our study and findings will inspire the community to explore the applicability of large time series models in hydrological applications. The code and data are available at https://github.com/rahuul2992000/Everglades-Benchmark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Water Flow through Everglades National Park. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Study area: a portion of the Everglades National [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flow diagram of the Methodology. a) Data collection: retrieval and merging of raw data. b) Preprocessing: data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of Accuracy vs Efficiency vs Model Size for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance (lead time: 28 days) vs Input Length. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Extreme value predictions at (a) P33, (b) G620, and (c) NESRS1 stations using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of Input Length on Chronos Model Performance at various stations. D Correlation Study To investigate the discrepancy between the NP205 station and other water stations, we compute their correlations. The right plot emphasizes correlations among NP205, P33, G620,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correlation Analysis of water levels at five measuring water stations and nearby gates. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of Model Performance for 28-Day Water Level Forecasting at NP205 Measuring Station. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of Model Performance for 28-Day Water Level Forecasting at P33 Measuring Station. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of Model Performance for 28-Day Water Level Forecasting at G620 Measuring Station. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of Model Performance for 28-Day Water Level Forecasting at NESRS1 Measuring Station. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of Model Performance for 28-Day Water Level Forecasting at NESRS2 Measuring Station. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Z.; Wiederholt, R

    Abiy, A. Z.; Wiederholt, R. P.; Lagerwall, G. L.; Melesse, A. M.; and Davis, S. E. 2022. Multilayer feedforward artificial neural network model to forecast Florida Bay salinity with climate change. Water, 14(21): 3495

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Agaj, T.; Budka, A.; Janicka, E.; and Bytyqi, V. 2024. Using ARIMA and ETS models for forecasting water level changes for sustainable environmental management. Scientific Reports, 14(1): 22444

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    F.; Stella, L.; Turkmen, C.; Zhang, X.; Mercado, P.; Shen, H.; Shchur, O.; Rangapuram, S

    Ansari, A. F.; Stella, L.; Turkmen, C.; Zhang, X.; Mercado, P.; Shen, H.; Shchur, O.; Rangapuram, S. S.; Arango, S. P.; Kapoor, S.; et al. 2024. Chronos: Learning the language of time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07815

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    S.; Sokkalingam, R.; Daud, H.; Adhikary, S

    Azad, A. S.; Sokkalingam, R.; Daud, H.; Adhikary, S. K.; Khurshid, H.; Mazlan, S. N. A.; and Rabbani, M. B. A. 2022. Water level prediction through hybrid SARIMA and ANN models based on time series analysis: Red hills reservoir case study. Sustainability, 14(3): 1843

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    M.; Swain, E

    Bassah, R.; Corzo, G.; Bhattacharya, B.; Haider, S. M.; Swain, E. D.; and Aumen, N. 2025. Forecasting water levels using the ConvLSTM algorithm in the Everglades, USA. Journal of Hydrology, 652: 132195

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    O.; and Pfister, T

    Chen, S.-A.; Li, C.-L.; Yoder, N.; Arik, S. O.; and Pfister, T. 2023. Tsmixer: An all-mlp architecture for time series forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06053

    arXiv 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Das, A.; Kong, W.; Sen, R.; and Zhou, Y. 2023. A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10688

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Fei, K.; Du, H.; and Gao, L. 2023. Accurate water level predictions in a tidal reach: Integration of Physics-based and Machine learning approaches. Journal of Hydrology, 622: 129705

    2023

  3. [11]

    Garza, A.; and Mergenthaler, M. 2023. TimeGPT-1. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03589

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Goswami, M.; Szafer, K.; Choudhry, A.; Cai, Y.; Li, S.; and Dubrawski, A. 2024. Moment: A family of open time-series foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03885

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    D.; McCloskey, B.; and Henkel, H

    Haider, S.; Swain, E.; Beerens, J.; Petkewich, M. D.; McCloskey, B.; and Henkel, H. 2020. The Everglades depth estimation network (EDEN) surface-water interpolation model, version 3. Technical report, US Geological Survey

    2020

  6. [15]

    Han, T.; Guo, S.; Chen, Z.; Xu, W.; and Bai, L. 2024 b . WEATHER-5K: A Large-scale Global Station Weather Dataset Towards Comprehensive Time-series Forecasting Benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14399

    2024 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Han, X.; Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; and Wu, Z. 2024 c . Kan4tsf: Are kan and kan-based models effective for time series forecasting? arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11306

    2024 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Hou, M.; Wei, J.; Shi, Y.; Hou, S.; Zhang, W.; Xu, J.; Wu, Y.; and Wang, H. 2024. Hydroformer: Frequency domain enhanced multi-attention transformer for monthly lake level reconstruction with low data input requirements. Water Resources Research, 60(10): e2024WR037166

    2024

  9. [18]

    Huang, P.-C.; and Lee, K. T. 2023. An alternative for predicting real-time water levels of urban drainage systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 347: 119099

    2023

  10. [19]

    Y.; Shi, X.; Chen, P.-Y.; Liang, Y.; Li, Y.-F.; Pan, S.; et al

    Jin, M.; Wang, S.; Ma, L.; Chu, Z.; Zhang, J. Y.; Shi, X.; Chen, P.-Y.; Liang, Y.; Li, Y.-F.; Pan, S.; et al. 2023. Time-llm: Time series forecasting by reprogramming large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01728

    2023 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Jin, M.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, W.; Zhang, K.; Liang, Y.; Yang, B.; Wang, J.; Pan, S.; and Wen, Q. 2024. Position: What Can Large Language Models Tell Us about Time Series Analysis. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  12. [21]

    N.; Doss-Gollin, J.; Sebastian, A.; and Silva, A

    Kazadi, A. N.; Doss-Gollin, J.; Sebastian, A.; and Silva, A. 2022. Flood prediction with graph neural networks. Climate Change AI. Climate Change AI

    2022

  13. [22]

    S.; and Coulibaly, P

    Khan, M. S.; and Coulibaly, P. 2006. Application of support vector machine in lake water level prediction. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 11(3): 199--205

    2006

  14. [23]

    M.; Sharma, K

    Kumar, V.; Azamathulla, H. M.; Sharma, K. V.; Mehta, D. J.; and Maharaj, K. T. 2023. The state of the art in deep learning applications, challenges, and future prospects: A comprehensive review of flood forecasting and management. Sustainability, 15(13): 10543

    2023

  15. [24]

    Li, S.; Jin, X.; Xuan, Y.; Zhou, X.; Chen, W.; Wang, Y.-X.; and Yan, X. 2019. Enhancing the locality and breaking the memory bottleneck of transformer on time series forecasting. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  16. [25]

    V.; Zhang, R.; Yoon, J.; Ye, H.; Dabo, I.; and Radli \'n ska, A

    Li, Z.; Pei, T.; Ying, W.; Srubar III, W. V.; Zhang, R.; Yoon, J.; Ye, H.; Dabo, I.; and Radli \'n ska, A. 2024. Can domain knowledge benefit machine learning for concrete property prediction? Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 107(3): 1582--1602

    2024

  17. [26]

    Liu, X.; and Wang, W. 2024. Deep Time Series Forecasting Models: A Comprehensive Survey. Mathematics, 12(10): 1504

    2024

  18. [27]

    Liu, Y.; Hu, T.; Zhang, H.; Wu, H.; Wang, S.; Ma, L.; and Long, M. 2023. itransformer: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06625

    2023 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Liu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Li, C.; Huang, X.; Wang, J.; and Long, M. 2024 a . Timer: Generative Pre-trained Transformers Are Large Time Series Models. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  20. [29]

    Y.; and Tegmark, M

    Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Vaidya, S.; Ruehle, F.; Halverson, J.; Solja c i \'c , M.; Hou, T. Y.; and Tegmark, M. 2024 b . Kan: Kolmogorov-arnold networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19756

    2024 arXiv

  21. [30]

    F.; Yin, D.; Bakhtyar, R.; Moftakhari, H.; Xue, Z.; Mandli, K.; and Ferreira, C

    Mu \ n oz, D. F.; Yin, D.; Bakhtyar, R.; Moftakhari, H.; Xue, Z.; Mandli, K.; and Ferreira, C. 2022. Inter-model comparison of Delft3D-FM and 2D HEC-RAS for total water level prediction in coastal to inland transition zones. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Associ...

    2022

  22. [31]

    H.; Le, X

    Nguyen, D. H.; Le, X. H.; Heo, J.-Y.; and Bae, D.-H. 2021. Development of an extreme gradient boosting model integrated with evolutionary algorithms for hourly water level prediction. IEEE Access, 9: 125853--125867

    2021

  23. [32]

    H.; Sinthong, P.; and Kalagnanam, J

    Nie, Y.; Nguyen, N. H.; Sinthong, P.; and Kalagnanam, J. 2022. A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14730

    2022 arXiv

  24. [33]

    N.; Carpov, D.; Chapados, N.; and Bengio, Y

    Oreshkin, B. N.; Carpov, D.; Chapados, N.; and Bengio, Y. 2019. N-BEATS: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10437

    2019 arXiv

  25. [34]

    M.; Khare, Y.; Wiederholt, R.; and Davis III, S

    Paudel, R.; Van Lent, T.; Naja, G. M.; Khare, Y.; Wiederholt, R.; and Davis III, S. E. 2020. Assessing the hydrologic response of key restoration components to everglades ecosystem. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 146(11): 04020084

    2020

  26. [35]

    G.; Beerens, J

    Pearlstine, L. G.; Beerens, J. M.; Reynolds, G.; Haider, S. M.; McKelvy, M.; Suir, K.; Roma \ n ach, S. S.; and Nestler, J. H. 2020. Near-term spatial hydrologic forecasting in Everglades, USA for landscape planning and ecological forecasting. Environmental Modelling & Softwar...

    2020

  27. [36]

    Saberski, E.; Park, J.; Hill, T.; Stabenau, E.; and Sugihara, G. 2022. Improved prediction of managed water flow into Everglades National Park using empirical dynamic modeling. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 148(12): 05022009

    2022

  28. [37]

    Sekban, J.; Nabil, M. O. M.; Alsan, H. F.; and Arsan, T. 2022. Istanbul Dam Water Levels Forecasting Using ARIMA Models. In 2022 Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications Conference (ASYU), 1--7. IEEE

    2022

  29. [38]

    SFWMD. 2005. Documentation of the south Florida water management model v5.5

    2005

  30. [39]

    Shi, J.; Jin, B.; Han, J.; and Narasimhan, G. 2024. Codicast: Conditional diffusion model for weather prediction with uncertainty quantification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05975

    2024 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Shi, J.; Myana, R.; Stebliankin, V.; Shirali, A.; and Narasimhan, G. 2023 a . Explainable parallel rcnn with novel feature representation for time series forecasting. In International Workshop on Advanced Analytics and Learning on Temporal Data, 56--75. Springer

    2023

  32. [41]

    Shi, J.; Yin, Z.; Leon, A.; Obeysekera, J.; and Narasimhan, G. 2025. FIDLAR: Forecast-Informed Deep Learning Architecture for Flood Mitigation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, 28377--28385

    2025

  33. [42]

    Shi, J.; Yin, Z.; Myana, R.; Ishtiaq, K.; John, A.; Obeysekera, J.; Leon, A.; and Narasimhan, G. 2023 b . Deep Learning Models for Flood Predictions in South Florida. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15907

    2023 arXiv

  34. [43]

    South Florida Water Management District . 2024. DBHYDRO Environmental Database . https://www.sfwmd.gov/science-data/dbhydro. [Online; accessed 10-Feb-2025]

    2024

  35. [44]

    Vaswani, A. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2017

  36. [45]

    Y.; and Zhou, J

    Wang, S.; Wu, H.; Shi, X.; Hu, T.; Luo, H.; Ma, L.; Zhang, J. Y.; and Zhou, J. 2024. Timemixer: Decomposable multiscale mixing for time series forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14616

    2024 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Woo, G.; Liu, C.; Kumar, A.; Xiong, C.; Savarese, S.; and Sahoo, D. 2024. Unified training of universal time series forecasting transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02592

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Wu, Y.; Chow, K.-H.; Wei, W.; and Liu, L. 2023. Exploring model learning heterogeneity for boosting ensemble robustness. In 2023 IEEE ICDM, 648--657. IEEE

    2023

  39. [48]

    Yin, Z.; Bian, L.; Hu, B.; Shi, J.; and Leon, A. S. 2023. Physic-informed neural network approach coupled with boundary conditions for solving 1D steady shallow water equations for riverine system. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2023, 280--288

    2023

  40. [49]

    H.; Zanje, S

    Yin, Z.; Shi, J.; Bian, L.; Campbell, W. H.; Zanje, S. R.; Hu, B.; and Leon, A. S. 2025. Physics-informed neural network approach for solving the one-dimensional unsteady shallow-water equations in riverine systems. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 151(1): 04024060

    2025

  41. [50]

    Zeng, A.; Chen, M.; Zhang, L.; and Xu, Q. 2023. Are transformers effective for time series forecasting? In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 37, 11121--11128

    2023

  42. [51]

    Zheng, X.; Lin, C.; Chen, S.; Chen, Z.; Shi, J.; Cheng, W.; Obeysekera, J.; Liu, J.; and Luo, D. 2025. SF ^2 Bench: Evaluating Data-Driven Models for Compound Flood Forecasting in South Florida. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04281

    2025 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Zhou, H.; Zhang, S.; Peng, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, J.; Xiong, H.; and Zhang, W. 2021. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2021, volume 35, 11106--11115

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.