Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

ChronoSteer: Bridging Large Language Model and Time Series Foundation Model via Synthetic Data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ChronoSteer claims that a frozen time-series foundation model can be steered by natural-language revision instructions through a small trained adapter, and that training this adapter solely on synthetic instruction-series pairs beats both…

desk verdict A genuinely new steering idea with a solid control, but the 'exclusively synthetic' claim is contradicted by real-label fine-tuning and the headline numbers don't exactly reproduce — still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10083 v1 pith:3S2XKLNV submitted 2025-05-15 cs.LG

Chengsen Wang , Qi Qi , Zhongwen Rao , Lujia Pan , Jingyu Wang , Jianxin Liao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords multimodaltimeseriesforecastingfoundationmodellargelanguagerevisioninstructionssynthetictrainingdatapseudo-labelfine-tuningzero-shotinformationleakage
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

ChronoSteer attacks the shortage of paired event-text and time-series data by splitting multimodal forecasting into two roles: a large language model rewrites messy textual context into a short, explicit "revision instruction" (for example, "lower the peaks"), and a small adapter on top of a frozen time-series foundation model applies that instruction to the model's forecast. The paper claims that training this adapter exclusively on synthetic pairs—generated by applying nine hand-coded revision functions to unimodal forecasts—transfers to real-world zero-shot forecasting. In experiments across energy, traffic, and weather benchmarks, the full system beats its unimodal backbone by 25.7% in MSE and the previous best multimodal method by 22.5%, at nearly the same inference cost as the backbone. The same paper contributes MTSFBench-300, a leakage-conscious benchmark with data updated to January 2025, and a pseudo-label fine-tuning stage that lets real future series correct imprecise instructions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the anchor codebook plus its paired transformation functions: nine instructions—"keep unchanged, increase/reduce trend, expand/compress amplitude, elevate/lower peaks, raise/deepen troughs"—each with a hand-designed analytic transformation of the unimodal forecast. At inference, the LLM's revision instruction is embedded, matched by cosine similarity to the nearest anchor, and converted by the aligned MLP into one token placed at the beginning of the time-series token sequence, exploiting the tendency of Transformers to attend strongly to early tokens. During pre-training, these nine transformations create dense supervision (900K synthetic triplets from a public time-series archive), and a contrastive loss forces outputs tied to different anchors apart. During fine-tuning, optimal matching against real future series replaces function-transformed targets with real targets, letting the model exceed the ceiling of the hand-coded functions.

What would settle it

Find a set of events whose effect on the series is not one of the nine transformations—for example, a one-day strike that shifts the morning rush-hour peak two hours later while leaving its size unchanged—and ask the LLM to rewrite them as revision instructions. If the full ChronoSteer pipeline cannot reduce MSE below the unimodal forecast on a held-out batch of such events, the nine-anchor assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that cross-modal alignment for forecasting does not require the model to understand open-ended text; it can be reduced to choosing one of nine canonical "revision instructions" that reshape a unimodal forecast. ChronoSteer maps a text embedding to the nearest anchor in a pre-constructed codebook of nine instruction embeddings, projects it through a two-layer MLP into a single token, and prepends that token to the frozen TSFM's patch embeddings. Training proceeds without any real text-series pairs: pre-training uses function-transformed synthetic futures with a contrastive loss that separates different anchors, and fine-tuning uses pseudo-labels chosen as the instruction whose candidate forecast is closest to the real future series. After this synthetic-only training, the model steered by an LLM-generated instruction reduces prediction MSE by 25.7% relative to its unimodal backbone and by 22.5% relative to the previous state-of-the-art multimodal method.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every consequential textual event can be compressed into one of nine hand-designed revision instructions, each implemented as a fixed mathematical reshaping of the unimodal forecast; if a real event needs a different kind of adjustment, the bridge from language to forecast stops working.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Plugging a better reasoning LLM into the instruction-generation step should improve forecasts directly, because the trained ChronoSteer itself never sees raw text at inference.
  • Any domain with useful textual context can adopt the same recipe—frozen TSFM, text embedder, anchor codebook, two-stage synthetic training—without collecting paired event-series data.
  • The new benchmark offers a leakage-conscious way to measure multimodal forecasting on data issued after LLM knowledge cutoffs.
  • Ablation results show that each ingredient matters: removing context, contrastive loss, fine-tuning, or the nonlinear alignment module degrades accuracy, with fine-tuning removal costing 8–17% depending on domain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same architecture could support a larger or hierarchical codebook: the nine anchors are a training-data choice, not a structural limit, so richer instruction dictionaries are a natural next step that the paper does not explore.
  • A clean test would replace nearest-neighbour anchor retrieval with a soft mixture of anchors; if that helps on out-of-distribution events, the hard nine-way discretisation is the bottleneck rather than the frozen TSFM.
  • The pseudo-label fine-tuning stage is effectively using real but unlabelled series to correct instruction errors, which suggests a semi-supervised route to scaling cross-modal forecasting without any paired annotations.
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. ChronoSteer proposes a decoupled multimodal forecasting framework: an LLM converts textual events into one of nine anchor revision instructions, and a lightweight alignment module steers the output of a frozen time series foundation model (Chronos-Bolt-base) conditioned on that instruction. To avoid collecting real event-series pairs, the authors design a two-stage training procedure: first, synthetic pretraining on triplets (x, c, \tilde{y}) where \tilde{y} is produced by applying hand-designed transformation functions to the unimodal forecast; second, pseudo-label-guided fine-tuning on triplets (x, \hat{c}, y) where \hat{c} is selected among the nine anchors by closeness of the model's candidate predictions to the real future series y. The paper also introduces MTSFBench-300, a January-2025 benchmark in Energy, Traffic, and Weather. The headline claim is that ChronoSteer, trained exclusively on synthetic data, improves prediction accuracy by 25.7% over the unimodal backbone and by 22.5% over the previous state-of-the-art multimodal method.

Significance. If the claims held as stated, the contribution would be practically valuable: it would show that a small trained adapter can steer a frozen TSFM through textual revision instructions, avoiding the need for real cross-modal event-text pairs, and it would provide a benchmark designed to mitigate LLM data leakage. The design is internally coherent, and Table 2's Function baseline is a good control demonstrating that learned steering outperforms directly applying the transformation functions. The robustness tables (Table 5) and the backbone/embedding/LLM ablations in Appendix B are useful. However, the significance is materially reduced by two load-bearing problems: the 'exclusively synthetic data' claim is contradicted by the fine-tuning stage, which uses real future series as supervised targets, and the headline 25.7%/22.5% numbers cannot be reproduced from the reported tables. The core idea is defensible, but the paper as written overstates what is demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.5.1] The repeated claim that ChronoSteer is 'trained exclusively on synthetic data' is contradicted by the method itself. Section 3.5.1 states that 'we incorporate the real future series y as a supervised target during fine-tuning' and constructs ChronoSteer-100K-FT from 100K triplets (x, c\u0302, y) with real y. The fine-tuning stage is not synthetic. This is load-bearing because Table 3's 'rm Finetune' ablation shows that removing this real-label fine-tuning degrades accuracy by 10.1% (Energy), 8.3% (Traffic), and 16.6% (Weather). A substantial part of the reported 25.7% improvement over the unimodal backbone therefore comes from exposure to real future observations, not from the synthetic two-stage procedure. The abstract, Section 4.2, and Section 5 should be rephrased to state that pretraining is synthetic while fine-tuning uses real future series, and the relative contributions should be re-reported accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Tables 1/2] The headline percentages (25.7% improvement over the unimodal backbone and 22.5% gain over DeepSeek-R1) cannot be recovered from the reported tables. Using the MSE values in Table 2, the per-domain improvements over the unimodal backbone are approximately 24.7% (Energy), 23.2% (Traffic), and 34.3% (Weather); averaging across rows gives 28.0%, while averaging across domains gives 27.4%. None of these equals 25.7%. For the comparison against DeepSeek-R1 in Table 1, a per-row average of relative MSE improvements is 26.2%, not 22.5%. The paper does not state how the aggregate percentages are computed (e.g., macro-average over domains, micro-average over rows, or a different metric such as MAE). Since these numbers appear in the abstract and conclusion, the authors should specify the exact aggregation formula and provide numbers consistent with the tables, or report per-domain results only.
  3. [Section 3.4.1 and Appendix D] The framework's coverage of textual guidance is restricted to nine hand-crafted anchor revision instructions. Section 3.4.1 derives these from 1K open-text instructions by expert distillation, and Appendix D explicitly acknowledges that 'its generalization is still restricted.' This is a central assumption rather than a peripheral detail: the anchor matching mechanism of Eq. (4) maps any LLM-generated instruction to the nearest anchor, so instructions outside the codebook are silently replaced. The paper provides no analysis of how often the LLM's instructions on MTSFBench-300 fall far from the nine anchors, no ablation varying the codebook size, and no error analysis of the cosine-similarity retrieval. Given the load-bearing role of the nine anchors for the claimed domain generality, the authors should either quantify coverage on their own benchmark or explicitly scope the empirical claims to instructions expressible by the nine anchors.
  4. [Section 3.5.1 and Eq. (9)] The pseudo-label generation strategy uses the real future series y to select the instruction whose candidate prediction is closest to y. This is a reasonable training heuristic, but it means the instruction labels are derived from the prediction target. The paper should disclose this clearly in the abstract and method overview; the current phrasing 'trained exclusively on synthetic data' obscures it. Moreover, since the selection is among only nine candidates produced by the pretrained model, the fine-tuning signal can only reinforce what those nine anchors can express, compounding the coverage concern raised above. This does not invalidate the method, but the data-efficiency claim should be restated as 'no real cross-modal event-text pairs are required' rather than 'trained exclusively on synthetic data.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B.4.2] There is a typo in the model name 'V oyage-3-lite'; it should be 'Voyage-3-lite'.
  2. [Section 4.4] The text 'LLaV A' should be 'LLaVA' for consistency with the reference [22].
  3. [Table 4] The table header uses 'Hist Pred' without a space and does not list the prediction lengths for the Energy dataset (which are 48 in the text but the column says 48 for all rows); please clarify whether 'Pred' values are prediction lengths or something else.
  4. [Section 4.1.1] The description of MTSFBench-300 says the benchmark 'incorporates data updated to January 2025,' but the test period is January 2025; please clarify whether the data includes only January 2025 or also earlier months and how the train/validation/test splits are defined for the benchmark.
  5. [Appendix B.1] Table 5 reports standard deviations only for ChronoSteer, not for the baselines. Since the headline comparisons are against DeepSeek-R1 and other baselines, reporting baseline variance or confidence intervals would strengthen the claim that the observed improvements exceed run-to-run variability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Headline 'trained exclusively on synthetic data' is internally contradicted by real-future-series fine-tuning and oracle pseudo-label selection; the reported gains are not attributable to the synthetic pipeline alone.

  1. other [Abstract; Section 3.5.1 (Pseudo Label Generation)]
    "After integrating with an LLM, ChronoSteer, which is trained exclusively on synthetic data, achieves a 25.7% improvement in prediction accuracy compared to the unimodal backbone ... Relying exclusively on synthetic future series˜y as targets limits the ceiling of the model to transformation functions. To overcome this, we incorporate the real future series y as a supervised target during fine-tuning."

    The final model behind the headline numbers is not trained exclusively on synthetic data: Section 3.5.1 feeds real future series y as the supervised target, and Section 3.5.1 constructs ChronoSteer-100K-FT from triplets (x, ĉ, y). The abstract's 'exclusively synthetic' claim is therefore contradicted by the paper's own method description. The rm Finetune ablation in Table 3 shows that removing this real-label fine-tuning degrades MSE by 10.1% (Energy), 8.3% (Traffic), and 16.6% (Weather), so a substantial part of the claimed 25.7%/22.5% gains is attributable to exposure to real future observations rather than to the synthetic two-stage procedure. The derivation of the headline result thus reduces, in part, to fitting the target quantity.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5.1, Eq. (9)]
    "The prediction closest to y is selected based on MSE, and its corresponding anchor revision instructionc i is assigned as the pseudo-label ˆc: ˆc=c i,wherei= arg min j∈[1,N] MSE (ˆyj,y)"

    The pseudo-label that supervises fine-tuning is selected using the true future series y, which is exactly the quantity the model is later trained to predict and then evaluated on. At inference, the revision instruction comes from the LLM processing textual events, with no access to y, so the oracle selection used during training is absent at test time. This means the fine-tuning distribution is conditioned on ground-truth closeness: the model is taught to associate instructions that were cherry-picked as closest to y, injecting optimism into the training signal.

full rationale

The architecture-level contribution—a frozen TSFM steered by a lightweight instruction branch—is self-contained and is evaluated on a fresh benchmark, so the core bridging idea is not circular. The pre-training targets are by construction hand-designed transformation functions applied to the unimodal prediction, and the paper explicitly acknowledges this as a ceiling; that is a deliberate design choice rather than a hidden circularity. However, the abstract and conclusion repeatedly claim that ChronoSteer is 'trained exclusively on synthetic data,' while Section 3.5.1 states that real future series y is incorporated as a supervised target during fine-tuning, and Eq. (9) selects pseudo-labels by oracle closeness to y. The rm Finetune ablation attributes 10.1%, 8.3%, and 16.6% MSE degradation to the removal of this real-label stage, so the headline 25.7%/22.5% gains are not solely attributable to the synthetic pipeline. The nine-anchor restriction is honestly disclosed in Appendix D as a generalization limitation, which counts in the paper's favor and is not circular. Self-citations to ChatTime [39] for clustering and benchmark-construction conventions are methodological borrowings and are not load-bearing for the central prediction claim. Overall, this is partial circularity and an internally contradicted headline claim, not a fully circular derivation; the independent content of the architecture and benchmark keeps the score at 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method depends on a small set of hand-chosen anchors and hand-designed transformation functions, plus standard tuning hyperparameters. The benchmark evaluation and the Function control provide independent grounding, but the anchor set's sufficiency is asserted rather than demonstrated.

free parameters (7)
  • number of anchor instructions N = 9
    Chosen by hand after expert review of 1K LLM-generated instructions (Section 3.4.1); the sufficiency of nine anchors is assumed, not derived.
  • transformation function amplitude ranges = min_factor/max_factor: 0.2-0.8 for trend and amplitude, 0.1-0.4 for peaks and troughs, tanh curve n=8
    Hand-set in Algorithm 1 to generate synthetic target series; these ranges determine the strength of each revision and are not fitted to real data.
  • K-means cluster counts for synthetic data sampling = 1K and 100K clusters
    Chosen for efficiency and diversity, following ChatTime (Section 3.4.1); no sensitivity analysis is provided for these counts.
  • contrastive loss weight alpha = 0.001
    Grid-searched over {0.0001, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1} on the validation split (Appendix A.3).
  • learning rate = 0.001
    Grid-searched over {0.0001, 0.0005, 0.001, 0.005} (Appendix A.3).
  • MLP hidden dimension = 1024
    Grid-searched over {512, 1024, 2048, 4096} (Appendix A.3).
  • sliding window length, stride, history length, prediction length = 160 / 32 / 128 / 32
    Chosen to match the TSFM context (Section 3.4.1); no analysis justifying these lengths is provided.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Nine anchor revision instructions span the useful space of textual guidance for forecasting.
    Section 3.4.1 says the anchors were distilled from 1K open-text instructions with expert knowledge; no external validation shows that nine anchors are sufficient. Appendix D acknowledges restricted generalization.
  • domain assumption An LLM can reliably map textual events to one of nine anchors without seeing the future.
    Equation 3 and Section 3.2 assume the LLM-generated instruction c is informative. The paper tests several LLMs but does not include human verification of instruction quality.
  • ad hoc to paper The transformation functions in Algorithm 1 produce realistic revised series.
    The functions (tanh trend additions, peak multipliers) are hand-designed; if they are unrealistic, pretraining teaches the wrong mapping from instructions to series.
  • domain assumption Prepending a single instruction token is sufficient to steer the frozen Chronos backbone.
    Section 3.3 fixes this architectural choice. The rp Linear ablation in Table 3 shows the MLP matters, but token count and insertion position are not studied.
  • domain assumption MTSFBench-300 is leakage-free and representative.
    Appendix A.1.2 claims forecast-only weather prevents future leakage; representativeness relies on clustering and manual data integrity checks, not an external validation study.
  • domain assumption Monash Repository slices provide sufficient diversity for zero-shot generalization.
    Section 3.4.1 samples 100K slices and assumes they cover Energy, Traffic, and Weather patterns; no explicit coverage analysis is given.
invented entities (1)
  • Textual revision instruction codebook (9 anchors) independent evidence
    purpose: Intermediate representation that decouples LLM from TSFM; reduces cross-modal alignment to a 9-way selection plus learned correction.
    The benchmark results and the Function baseline in Table 2 provide a falsifiable test: if anchor selection were uninformative, ChronoSteer should not beat the Function baseline or the unimodal backbone.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ChronoSteer: Bridging Large Language Model and Time Series Foundation Model via Synthetic Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3S2XKLNV

@misc{pith2026250510083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ChronoSteer: Bridging Large Language Model and Time Series Foundation Model via Synthetic Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3S2XKLNV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10083}
}
read the original abstract

Conventional forecasting methods rely on unimodal time series data, limiting their ability to exploit rich textual information. Recently, large language models (LLMs) and time series foundation models (TSFMs) have demonstrated powerful capability in textual reasoning and temporal modeling, respectively. Integrating the strengths of both to construct a multimodal model that concurrently leverages both temporal and textual information for future inference has emerged as a critical research challenge. To address the scarcity of event-series paired data, we propose a decoupled framework: an LLM is employed to transform textual events into revision instructions, which are then used to steer the output of TSFM. To implement this framework, we introduce ChronoSteer, a multimodal TSFM that can be steered through textual revision instructions, effectively bridging LLM and TSFM. Moreover, to mitigate the shortage of cross-modal instruction-series paired data, we devise a two-stage training strategy based on synthetic data. In addition, we also construct a high-quality multimodal time series forecasting benchmark to address the information leakage concerns during evaluation. After integrating with an LLM, ChronoSteer, which is trained exclusively on synthetic data, achieves a 25.7% improvement in prediction accuracy compared to the unimodal backbone and a 22.5% gain over the previous state-of-the-art multimodal method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10083 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The prediction errors of ChronoSteer and baselines for unimodal and multimodal time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of ChronoSteer. (a) illustrates the overall architecture, preserving the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The illustration of prediction showcases for ChronoSteer across various training stages, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The prediction errors of ChronoSteer with various hyperparameter configurations for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The illustration of prediction showcases for ChronoSteer across various training stages on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The illustration of prediction showcases for ChronoSteer across various training stages on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The illustration of prediction showcases for ChronoSteer across various training stages on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The illustration of prediction showcases for ChronoSteer across various training stages on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LLMRouter: Unified Infrastructure for Developing, Evaluating, and Deploying LLM Routers

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new open-source library and benchmark, xRouteBench, evaluates LLM routers on a shared cost-aware protocol across text, memory, vision, time-series, and personalized tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Maddix, Michael W

    Abdul Fatir Ansari, Lorenzo Stella, Ali Caner Türkmen, Xiyuan Zhang, Pedro Mercado, Huibin Shen, Oleksandr Shchur, Syama Sundar Rangapuram, Sebastian Pineda-Arango, Shubham Kapoor, Jasper Zschiegner, Danielle C. Maddix, Michael W. Mahoney, Kari Torkkola, An- drew Gordon Wilson, Michael Bohlke-Schneider, and Yuyang Wang. Chronos: Learning the language of t...

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Adebiyi Ariyo Ariyo, Aderemi Oluyinka Adewumi, and Charles K. Ayo. Stock price prediction using the ARIMA model. InInternational Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    G. E. P. Box and G. M. Jenkins. Some recent advances in forecasting and control.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 17, 1968

    work page 1968

  4. [4]

    Timeseriesexam: A time series understanding exam.arXiv, 2410.14752, 2024

    Yifu Cai, Arjun Choudhry, Mononito Goswami, and Artur Dubrawski. Timeseriesexam: A time series understanding exam.arXiv, 2410.14752, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Bge m3- embedding: Multi-lingual, multi-functionality, multi-granularity text embeddings through self-knowledge distillation.arXiv, 2402.03216, 2024

    Jianlv Chen, Shitao Xiao, Peitian Zhang, Kun Luo, Defu Lian, and Zheng Liu. Bge m3- embedding: Multi-lingual, multi-functionality, multi-granularity text embeddings through self-knowledge distillation.arXiv, 2402.03216, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Terra: A multimodal spatio-temporal dataset spanning the earth

    Wei Chen, Xixuan Hao, Yuankai Wu, and Yuxuan Liang. Terra: A multimodal spatio-temporal dataset spanning the earth. InNeural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Yuzhou Chen, Ignacio Segovia-Dominguez, Baris Coskunuzer, and Yulia R. Gel. Tamp- s2gcnets: Coupling time-aware multipersistence knowledge representation with spatio-supra graph convolutional networks for time-series forecasting. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting

    Abhimanyu Das, Weihao Kong, Rajat Sen, and Yichen Zhou. A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Gifford, Chandra Reddy, and Jayant Kalagnanam

    Vijay Ekambaram, Arindam Jati, Pankaj Dayama, Sumanta Mukherjee, Nam Nguyen, Wesley M. Gifford, Chandra Reddy, and Jayant Kalagnanam. Tiny time mixers (ttms): Fast pre-trained models for enhanced zero/few-shot forecasting of multivariate time series. InNeural Information Proce...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Deepar: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks.arXiv, 2201.00382, 2017

    Valentin Flunkert, David Salinas, and Jan Gasthaus. Deepar: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks.arXiv, 2201.00382, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Evaluating large language models on time series feature understanding: A comprehensive taxonomy and benchmark

    Elizabeth Fons, Rachneet Kaur, Soham Palande, Zhen Zeng, Tucker Balch, Manuela Veloso, and Svitlana Vyetrenko. Evaluating large language models on time series feature understanding: A comprehensive taxonomy and benchmark. InEmpirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Webb, Rob J

    Rakshitha Godahewa, Christoph Bergmeir, Geoffrey I. Webb, Rob J. Hyndman, and Pablo Montero-Manso. Monash time series forecasting archive. InNeural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Moment: A family of open time-series foundation models

    Mononito Goswami, Konrad Szafer, Arjun Choudhry, Yifu Cai, Shuo Li, and Artur Dubrawski. Moment: A family of open time-series foundation models. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Large language models are zero-shot time series forecasters

    Nate Gruver, Marc Finzi, Shikai Qiu, and Andrew Gordon Wilson. Large language models are zero-shot time series forecasters. InNeural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Towards responsible and reliable traffic flow prediction with large language models.arXiv, 2404.02937, 2024

    Xusen Guo, Qiming Zhang, Junyue Jiang, Mingxing Peng, Hao Yang, and Meixin Zhu. Towards responsible and reliable traffic flow prediction with large language models.arXiv, 2404.02937, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    CATN: cross attentive tree-aware network for multivariate time series forecasting

    Hui He, Qi Zhang, Simeng Bai, Kun Yi, and Zhendong Niu. CATN: cross attentive tree-aware network for multivariate time series forecasting. InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022. 10

    2022

  9. [17]

    Instance-based deep transfer learning with attention for stock movement prediction.Applied Intelligence, 53, 2023

    Qi-Qiao He, Shirley Weng In Siu, and Yain-Whar Si. Instance-based deep transfer learning with attention for stock movement prediction.Applied Intelligence, 53, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Long short-term memory.Neural Computation, 9, 1997

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory.Neural Computation, 9, 1997

    1997

  11. [19]

    The first few tokens are all you need: An efficient and effective unsupervised prefix fine-tuning method for reasoning models.arXiv, 2503.02875, 2025

    Ke Ji, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang, Qiuzhi Liu, Zhiwei He, Xingyu Chen, Xiaoyuan Liu, Zhijie Wang, Junying Chen, Benyou Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. The first few tokens are all you need: An efficient and effective unsupervised prefix fine-tuning method for reasoning m...

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Zhang, Xiaoming Shi, Pin-Yu Chen, Yuxuan Liang, Yuan-Fang Li, Shirui Pan, and Qingsong Wen

    Ming Jin, Shiyu Wang, Lintao Ma, Zhixuan Chu, James Y . Zhang, Xiaoming Shi, Pin-Yu Chen, Yuxuan Liang, Yuan-Fang Li, Shirui Pan, and Qingsong Wen. Timellm: Time series forecasting by reprogramming large language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Towards editing time series

    Baoyu Jing, Shuqi Gu, Tianyu Chen, Zhiyu Yang, Dongsheng Li, Jingrui He, and Kan Ren. Towards editing time series. InNeural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Aditya Prakash

    Haoxin Liu, Chenghao Liu, and B. Aditya Prakash. A picture is worth A thousand numbers: Enabling llms reason about time series via visualization.arXiv, 2411.06018, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sasanur, Megha Sharma, Jiaming Cui, Qingsong Wen, Chao Zhang, and B

    Haoxin Liu, Shangqing Xu, Zhiyuan Zhao, Lingkai Kong, Harshavardhan Kamarthi, Aditya B. Sasanur, Megha Sharma, Jiaming Cui, Qingsong Wen, Chao Zhang, and B. Aditya Prakash. Time-mmd: A new multi-domain multimodal dataset for time series analysis. InNeural Information Processin...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Aditya Prakash

    Haoxin Liu, Zhiyuan Zhao, Jindong Wang, Harshavardhan Kamarthi, and B. Aditya Prakash. Lstprompt: Large language models as zero-shot time series forecasters by long-short-term prompting. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    itransformer: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting

    Yong Liu, Tengge Hu, Haoran Zhang, Haixu Wu, Shiyu Wang, Lintao Ma, and Mingsheng Long. itransformer: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Merrill, Mingtian Tan, Vinayak Gupta, Thomas Hartvigsen, and Tim Althoff

    Mike A. Merrill, Mingtian Tan, Vinayak Gupta, Thomas Hartvigsen, and Tim Althoff. Language models still struggle to zero-shot reason about time series. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam

    Yuqi Nie, Nam H. Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam. A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    S2IP-LLM: semantic space informed prompt learning with LLM for time series forecasting

    Zijie Pan, Yushan Jiang, Sahil Garg, Anderson Schneider, Yuriy Nevmyvaka, and Dongjin Song. S2IP-LLM: semantic space informed prompt learning with LLM for time series forecasting. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python.Journal of Machine Learnin...

    2011

  23. [31]

    Vale, and José Silva

    Tiago Pinto, Isabel Praça, Zita A. Vale, and José Silva. Ensemble learning for electricity consumption forecasting in office buildings.Neurocomputing, 423, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agar- wal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InInterna- tional ...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Salem, Karan Kathuria, Heri Ramampiaro, and Helge Langseth

    Tárik S. Salem, Karan Kathuria, Heri Ramampiaro, and Helge Langseth. Forecasting intra-hour imbalances in electric power systems. InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv, 2501.12948, 2025

    DeepSeek-AI Team. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv, 2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv, 2307.09288, 2023

    Meta Team. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv, 2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    GPT-4 technical report.arXiv, 2303.08774, 2023

    OpenAI Team. GPT-4 technical report.arXiv, 2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Openai o3-mini, 2025

    OpenAI Team. Openai o3-mini, 2025. URL https://openai.com/index/ openai-o3-mini

    2025

  30. [38]

    Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforcement learning, 2025

    Qwen Team. Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforcement learning, 2025. URL https: //qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwq-32b/

    2025

  31. [39]

    Chattime: A unified multimodal time series foundation model bridging numerical and textual data

    Chengsen Wang, Qi Qi, Jingyu Wang, Haifeng Sun, Zirui Zhuang, Jinming Wu, Lei Zhang, and Jianxin Liao. Chattime: A unified multimodal time series foundation model bridging numerical and textual data. InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    MICN: multi-scale local and global context modeling for long-term series forecasting

    Huiqiang Wang, Jian Peng, Feihu Huang, Jince Wang, Junhui Chen, and Yifei Xiao. MICN: multi-scale local and global context modeling for long-term series forecasting. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Context is key: A benchmark for forecasting with essential textual information.arXiv, 2410.18959, 2024

    Andrew Robert Williams, Arjun Ashok, Étienne Marcotte, Valentina Zantedeschi, Jithendaraa Subramanian, Roland Riachi, James Requeima, Alexandre Lacoste, Irina Rish, Nicolas Chapa- dos, and Alexandre Drouin. Context is key: A benchmark for forecasting with essential textual inf...

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Unified training of universal time series forecasting transformers

    Gerald Woo, Chenghao Liu, Akshat Kumar, Caiming Xiong, Silvio Savarese, and Doyen Sahoo. Unified training of universal time series forecasting transformers. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting

    Haixu Wu, Jiehui Xu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting. InNeural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis

    Haixu Wu, Tengge Hu, Yong Liu, Hang Zhou, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Beyond trend and periodicity: Guiding time series forecasting with textual cues.arXiv, 2405.13522, 2024

    Zhijian Xu, Yuxuan Bian, Jianyuan Zhong, Xiangyu Wen, and Qiang Xu. Beyond trend and periodicity: Guiding time series forecasting with textual cues.arXiv, 2405.13522, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Are transformers effective for time series forecasting? InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023

    Ailing Zeng, Muxi Chen, Lei Zhang, and Qiang Xu. Are transformers effective for time series forecasting? InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Crossformer: Transformer utilizing cross-dimension dependency for multivariate time series forecasting

    Yunhao Zhang and Junchi Yan. Crossformer: Transformer utilizing cross-dimension dependency for multivariate time series forecasting. InInternational Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting

    Haoyi Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Jieqi Peng, Shuai Zhang, Jianxin Li, Hui Xiong, and Wancai Zhang. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Keep Unchanged

    Tian Zhou, Peisong Niu, Xue Wang, Liang Sun, and Rong Jin. One fits all: Power general time series analysis by pretrained lm. InNeural Information Processing Systems, 2023. 12 A Detailed Experimental Setup A.1 Dataset A.1.1 ChronoSteer-100K Algorithm 1Synthetic Function import...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.