Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Enhancing LLM Reasoning for Time Series Classification by Tailored Thinking and Fused Decision

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ReasonTSC claims a three-turn reasoning protocol lets LLMs beat specialized time-series classifiers and even correct their errors.

desk verdict The evaluation leaks test-set labels into the LLM's second-round prompt, so the paper's central empirical claim doesn't hold as written; the framework itself is a clearly specified, reproducible recipe that deserves a clean rerun. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00807 v1 pith:OU5J4SJA submitted 2025-06-01 cs.AI

Jiahui Zhou , Dan Li , Lin Li , Zhuomin Chen , Shunyu Wu , Haozheng Ye , Jian Lou , Costas J. Spanos This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords timeseriesclassificationLLMreasoningchain-of-thoughtpromptingin-contextlearningfoundationmodelsmulti-turnbacktrackingfuseddecision
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

ReasonTSC is a framework for using large language models to classify time series. The paper argues that LLMs can reason effectively about time series, contrary to earlier findings that plain chain-of-thought prompting fails, provided the reasoning is steered explicitly. It proposes three reasoning turns: compare fundamental patterns across classes, interpret a plug-in time-series classifier's predictions and confidence scores, then make an initial judgment, backtrack to alternatives, and issue a final decision. Across 15 benchmark datasets and 16 LLMs, ReasonTSC consistently beats both plain chain-of-thought prompting and the plug-in classifiers themselves, with average gains of roughly 90 percent over plain CoT. The paper's central claim is that this multi-turn protocol, not the LLM's built-in reasoning, is what unlocks time series classification.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the three-turn reasoning protocol inside ReasonTSC. Turn one, TS Pattern Reasoning, forces the LLM to articulate differences across classes in six named time series traits, decomposing series into segments when relevant. Turn two, Plug-in Model Fusion Reasoning, converts a trained time-series classifier into an interpretable in-context oracle by showing its predictions, category-wise logits, confidence, and training accuracy. Turn three, Integrative Step-by-step Reasoning, structures each test prediction as: analyze patterns, interpret model outputs, make a preliminary prediction, backtrack to alternative classes, and then finalize. The load-bearing design choice is that the plug-in model's outputs are not hidden from the LLM or averaged in silently; they are presented as evidence the LLM must interpret and may override.

What would settle it

Re-run the full 15-dataset benchmark with the second-round in-context cases drawn only from the training set, or from a held-out validation split, while keeping all other prompt and model settings fixed; if ReasonTSC's accuracy edge over the plug-in classifiers collapses, then the test-set examples were responsible for the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that LLMs are capable of effective reasoning for time series classification when the reasoning process is tailored to the data rather than transplanted from NLP. ReasonTSC first gives the LLM two samples per class and asks it to compare trend, cyclic behavior, stationarity, amplitude, rate of change, and outliers. It then feeds it three cases in which a plug-in time-series model made predictions with confidence scores, including ground-truth labels, so the LLM learns the model's behavior. For each test sample, the LLM analyzes the series, interprets the plug-in model's logits, makes a preliminary prediction, explicitly considers alternative classes, and then decides. The paper reports that this consistently outperforms plain chain-of-thought prompting and the plug-in models, and that the LLM sometimes overrides plug-in predictions correctly, with overrides correct in about two-thirds to three-quarters of cases for the larger models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that showing the LLM three test-set samples with their true labels in the second-round prompt is a legitimate way to measure generalization on the remaining test samples; if that counts as leakage, the reported gains over the plug-in classifiers are not valid evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Time series classification can be improved by combining a small task-specific classifier with a general-purpose LLM reasoner, without training a new multimodal model.
  • Because ReasonTSC needs only a handful of in-context examples, it offers a low-data route that in some cases matches fully trained classifiers on the same benchmarks.
  • The backtracking step measurably contributes: when the LLM adopts an alternative candidate, the correction is correct in the majority of cases for the larger models.
  • The framework's benefit is not tied to one LLM; it appears across models of different sizes and training regimes, including models not post-trained for reasoning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to replace the plug-in classifier with a deliberately miscalibrated one; if ReasonTSC's corrections rely on reading confidence, its override accuracy should degrade as calibration worsens.
  • The same recipe, interpreted predictions from a domain model fed as in-context evidence followed by backtracking, could transfer to forecasting and anomaly detection, where earlier studies found reasoning techniques unhelpful.
  • Because performance in the paper is evaluated with test-set examples used as in-context illustrations, the strongest version of the claim would need a protocol that draws those examples only from training data; the reported margins might narrow under that protocol.
  • If the approach generalizes, it suggests a division of labor for time series tasks: foundation models supply local feature evidence, while LLMs supply categorical comparison and hypothesis revision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ReasonTSC, a multi-turn prompting framework that aims to improve LLM performance on time series classification (TSC). The framework first asks the LLM to compare time series patterns across categories using two training samples per class, then feeds the LLM classification logits and confidence scores from a plug-in time series foundation model, together with three in-context examples, and finally guides the LLM through an integrative step-by-step reasoning process with backtracking and alternative-answer comparison. Experiments are reported on 15 UCR/UEA datasets with two plug-in models (MOMENT and Chronos) and 16 LLMs. The paper claims that ReasonTSC consistently outperforms vanilla CoT prompting and the plug-in models themselves, and that it can identify and correct false predictions of the plug-in models.

Significance. The proposed framework is practically appealing: it avoids training specialized encoders or vision modules, reuses off-the-shelf time series foundation models as plug-ins, and the authors release code. The breadth of LLMs and datasets tested is a strength, and the synthetic pattern-recognition experiments in Appendix E provide a useful sanity check on LLMs' ability to identify basic time series characteristics. However, the central empirical claims currently rest on an evaluation protocol that leaks test-set labels into the LLM prompt, which invalidates the reported accuracy numbers, the comparisons to plug-in models, and the override analysis. If the evaluation is corrected and the conclusions survive, the paper could make a meaningful contribution to LLM-based time series classification; as submitted, the evidence does not support the headline claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Appendix B.1] The evaluation leaks test-set labels. Section 2.2 states that "3-shot time series samples are randomly selected from the testing set" and that their "ground truth labels" are fused into the second-round prompt as auxiliary references. Appendix B.1 confirms that each in-context example in the second round includes "True Label: [ground truth]". The third round then asks the LLM to classify testing samples after it has seen these examples. This means the LLM's context at inference contains ground-truth labels of evaluation-set samples, so every reported accuracy in Tables 1 and 2, the override statistics in Table 3, and the ablation in Figure 6 are potentially inflated by label leakage. The first-round training-set examples are legitimate, but they do not offset the second-round leakage. The authors must rerun the experiments with the second-round examples drawn from the training set or a held-out validation split, with no test labels in any prompt, and recompute the headline comparisons and override analysis under that protocol.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Tables 1-3] No repeated runs, error bars, or significance tests are reported. The few-shot examples in the first and second rounds are randomly selected, the plug-in models are trained or fine-tuned with stochastic procedures, and LLM decoding is stochastic; temperature is fixed at 0.2 only for the six-LLM subset mentioned in Section 3.1. A single run per configuration cannot support the claim that ReasonTSC "consistently outperforms" baselines, nor the fine-grained override rates in Table 3. The authors should report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds and apply a significance test to the headline comparisons.
  3. [Section 3.4.1 and Appendix E] The pattern-interpretation evaluation on UCR/UEA data does not measure correctness. Table 9 on synthetic data is a legitimate recognition test, but Figure 5 and Table 10 only count how often each pattern is mentioned by the LLM; there are no ground-truth pattern labels and no validation that the identified patterns are actually present or category-discriminative. The RQ1 conclusion that better pattern understanding drives classification performance would need either human-annotated pattern labels or a predictive validation linking the identified patterns to classification outcomes.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 3] The header "Overriden (%)" is a typo and should read "Overridden (%)"; the column naming should be made consistent.
  2. [Appendix B.1] The prompt template contains the typo "Classificaition Examples"; please correct it.
  3. [Appendix C.3] There is a typo "gererally" in the first paragraph; please fix it.
  4. [Appendix E.2] The prompt template contains "V olatility Differences" with an erroneous space; please correct it.
  5. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (2)-(3)] Equations (2) and (3) contain unbalanced parentheses and inconsistent notation (fM vs. f_M, X vs. Xj); the formalization should be cleaned up.
  6. [Section 3.1] The text says "six other mainstream LLMs" but Table 8 and Figure 2 report results for 16 models; please clarify whether "six" refers to model families rather than individual models.
  7. [Appendix F] The limitations section mentions context-length and cost concerns but does not mention the selection of second-round examples from the test set; this protocol choice should be acknowledged as a limitation and addressed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the framework is an empirical prompting strategy; final predictions are conditioned on plug-in scores rather than reconstructed from fitted parameters.

full rationale

ReasonTSC is an empirical prompting framework rather than a mathematical derivation chain. Its final prediction is an LLM classification produced from the input series, the plug-in model's logits/prediction, and the multi-turn prompts; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. MOMENT and Chronos are trained/used only on the official training splits, and their outputs serve as inputs to the LLM in the second and third rounds, so the reported 'override' behavior is an ensemble-style comparison, not a quantity that reduces to the LLM's own fitted inputs. Equations (1)-(4) are definitions of the task and the autoregressive generation process, not derivations of the result. The cited prior work ([46], [47], [48]) is external and is used to motivate prompting choices, not to supply a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or to import the framework's conclusion. The most serious weakness is in Section 2.2: '3-shot time series samples are randomly selected from the testing set' and their 'ground truth labels' are fused into the second-round prompt; this is test-set leakage and threatens the validity of the reported gains, and Appendix F's limitations do not mention it. Leakage is an experimental soundness problem, however, not a case where a claimed prediction is equivalent to its inputs by definition or by construction. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new mathematical entities or physical objects. Its free parameters are prompting hyperparameters and the leakage-inducing choice of test-set ICL examples. The central assumptions are domain assumptions about LLM pattern perception and the usefulness of plug-in model outputs, plus the implicit fairness of the evaluation protocol.

free parameters (3)
  • Few-shot examples per category in first turn = 2
    The main experiments use 2 samples per category; Figure 3 suggests 1-2 work best and 3 declines, so this choice is data-driven rather than fixed a priori.
  • ICL examples from testing set in second turn = 3
    The paper uses 3 test samples with ground-truth labels as in-context examples; this is a leakage-inducing design choice.
  • LLM temperature = 0.2
    Fixed at 0.2 for reproducibility, but no sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLMs can identify and compare fundamental time series patterns from raw numeric sequences rendered as text
    Central to the first reasoning turn; the paper provides supporting evidence in Section 3.4.1, but the main result depends on it.
  • domain assumption Plug-in model logits and training accuracy are informative auxiliary signals for the LLM
    Used in the second and third turns; supported only by ablations that include the test-set leakage.
  • domain assumption The UCR/UEA train/test splits and the first-dimensional projections are adequate for evaluating TSC
    Section 3.1 uses only the first variable of multivariate datasets, which may not represent the full task.
  • domain assumption Supervised knowledge from a plug-in model improves LLM in-context learning
    Borrowed from prior work [48] and used as motivation for the fused decision strategy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing LLM Reasoning for Time Series Classification by Tailored Thinking and Fused Decision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OU5J4SJA

@misc{pith2026250600807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing LLM Reasoning for Time Series Classification by Tailored Thinking and Fused Decision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OU5J4SJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00807}
}
read the original abstract

The reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced their performance by enabling in-depth understanding of diverse tasks. With growing interest in applying LLMs to the time series domain, this has proven nontrivial, as evidenced by the limited efficacy of straightforwardly adapting text-domain reasoning techniques. Although recent work has shown promise in several time series tasks, further leveraging advancements in LLM reasoning remains under-explored for time series classification (TSC) tasks, despite their prevalence and significance in many real-world applications. In this paper, we propose ReasonTSC, a novel framework designed to effectively leverage LLM reasoning for time series classification through both a multi-turn reasoning and a fused decision-making strategy tailored to TSC. Rather than straightforwardly applying existing reasoning techniques or relying solely on LLMs' built-in reasoning capabilities, ReasonTSC first steers the model to think over the essential characteristics of time series data. Next, it integrates predictions and confidence scores from plug-in classifiers, e.g., domain-specific time series models, as in-context examples. Finally, ReasonTSC guides the LLM through a structured reasoning process: it evaluates the initial assessment, backtracks to consider alternative hypotheses, and compares their merits before arriving at a final classification. Extensive experiments and systematic ablation studies demonstrate that ReasonTSC consistently outperforms both existing time series reasoning baselines and plug-in models, and is even capable of identifying and correcting plug-in models' false predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the proposed ReasonTSC framework. 2.2 The ReasonTSC Framework As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average performance of ReasonTSC with main￾stream LLMs as reasoning language models on three se￾lected UCR/UEA datasets (MiddlePhalanxOutlineAgeGroup, BME, and ERing). Besides, we also evaluate the pro￾posed ReasonTSC with other main￾stream LLMs as its reasoning lan￾guage models on three datasets. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ReasonTSC’s performance based on the number of few-shot examples provided in the 1st turn of reasoning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evaluation of ReasonTSC’s ability to reason about time series patterns using real-world datasets. We select 11 datasets from UCR and UEA archives, and ask the model to identify the 10 typical time series patterns across different datasets. For each dataset, the predomi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study of ReasonTSC under three configurations: without logits and the whole plug-in model. Three merits are compared under these conditions: classification performance (a), overridden rate (b), and override accuracy (c). To answer RQ2, we conduct ablation stud…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reasons for ReasonTSC override: (i) primary re￾liance on typical time series patterns, (ii) consideration of both the plug-in model’s logits and time series patterns, (iii) combined assessment of the plug-in model’s accuracy and time series patterns. Since the ReasonTS…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between ReasonTSC’s tailored CoT and vanilla CoT by GPT, Llama, and DeepSeek [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Performance improvement ratio of ICL examples in ReasonTSC’s second rea￾soning round [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average performance improvement of ReasonTSC compared to TSFMs across all the tested datasets. Three influence factors are considered: category count (a), time series length (b), and token count(c). 3.7-sonnet (120B parameters) demonstrate superior performance owing t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visualization of Class Distribution in the ElectricDevices Dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visualization of Class Distribution in the ERing Dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. TRACE-TS: Attribution-Grounded and Traceable Sensor-Language Reasoning for Human Activity Understanding

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Attribution-guided DAG reasoning traces distilled into a compact sensor-conditioned LM give 84.43% average accuracy and 81.24% F1 across seven HAR datasets, with SNM as an LLM-judge diagnostic for trace fidelity.

  2. A Survey of Reasoning and Agentic Systems in Time Series with Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The authors organize LLM-based time series reasoning into three exclusive topologies (direct, chain, branch) crossed with four objectives, and use them to label 125 papers, benchmarks, and resources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Medformer: A multi-granularity patching transformer for medical time-series classification

    Yihe Wang, Nan Huang, Taida Li, Yujun Yan, and Xiang Zhang. Medformer: A multi-granularity patching transformer for medical time-series classification. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Semi-supervised contrastive learning for time series classification in healthcare

    Xiaofeng Liu, Zhihong Liu, Jie Li, and Xiang Zhang. Semi-supervised contrastive learning for time series classification in healthcare. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    A comprehensive review on machine learning in healthcare industry: classification, restrictions, opportunities and challenges

    Qi An, Saifur Rahman, Jingwen Zhou, and James Jin Kang. A comprehensive review on machine learning in healthcare industry: classification, restrictions, opportunities and challenges. Sensors, 23(9):4178, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Improving stock trend prediction through financial time series classification and temporal correlation analysis based on aligning change point

    Mengxia Liang, Xiaolong Wang, and Shaocong Wu. Improving stock trend prediction through financial time series classification and temporal correlation analysis based on aligning change point. Soft Computing, 27(7):3655–3672, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Clustering and classification of time series using topological data analysis with applications to finance

    Sourav Majumdar and Arnab Kumar Laha. Clustering and classification of time series using topological data analysis with applications to finance. Expert Systems with Applications, 162:113868, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    V oice2series: Reprogramming acoustic models for time series classification

    Chao-Han Huck Yang, Yun-Yun Tsai, and Pin-Yu Chen. V oice2series: Reprogramming acoustic models for time series classification. In International conference on machine learning, pages 11808–11819. PMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Approaches and applications of early classification of time series: A review

    Ashish Gupta, Hari Prabhat Gupta, Bhaskar Biswas, and Tanima Dutta. Approaches and applications of early classification of time series: A review. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 1(1):47–61, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    A systematic review of time series classification techniques used in biomedical applications

    Will Ke Wang, Ina Chen, Leeor Hershkovich, Jiamu Yang, Ayush Shetty, Geetika Singh, Yihang Jiang, Aditya Kotla, Jason Zisheng Shang, Rushil Yerrabelli, et al. A systematic review of time series classification techniques used in biomedical applications. Sensors, 22(20):8016, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Gpt-4o system card

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology

    Gemma Team, Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivière, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, et al. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Conformalized time series with semantic features

    Baiting Chen, Zhimei Ren, and Lu Cheng. Conformalized time series with semantic features. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:121449–121474, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Parsimony or capability? decomposition delivers both in long-term time series forecasting

    Jinliang Deng, Feiyang Ye, Du Yin, Xuan Song, Ivor Tsang, and Hui Xiong. Parsimony or capability? decomposition delivers both in long-term time series forecasting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:66687–66712, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Large pre-trained time series models for cross- domain time series analysis tasks

    Harshavardhan Prabhakar Kamarthi and B Aditya Prakash. Large pre-trained time series models for cross- domain time series analysis tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:56190–56214, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Autotimes: Autoregressive time series forecasters via large language models

    Yong Liu, Guo Qin, Xiangdong Huang, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Autotimes: Autoregressive time series forecasters via large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 122154–122184, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Time-ffm: Towards lm- empowered federated foundation model for time series forecasting

    Qingxiang Liu, Xu Liu, Chenghao Liu, Qingsong Wen, and Yuxuan Liang. Time-ffm: Towards lm- empowered federated foundation model for time series forecasting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, pages 94512–94538. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024. 11

    2024

  11. [19]

    Tiny time mixers (ttms): Fast pre-trained models for enhanced zero/few-shot forecasting of multivariate time series

    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. Advances in Neural Informat...

    2024

  12. [20]

    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. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    One fits all: Power general time series analysis by pretrained lm

    Tian Zhou, Peisong Niu, Liang Sun, Rong Jin, et al. One fits all: Power general time series analysis by pretrained lm. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:43322–43355, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Time-LLM: Time series forecasting by repro- gramming large language models

    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. Time-LLM: Time series forecasting by repro- gramming large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations...

    2024

  15. [23]

    In-context time series predictor.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14982, 2024

    Jiecheng Lu, Yan Sun, and Shihao Yang. In-context time series predictor.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14982, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Can llms understand time series anomalies?, 2024

    Zihao Zhou and Rose Yu. Can llms understand time series anomalies?, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Sarad: Spatial association-aware anomaly detection and diagnosis for multivariate time series

    Zhihao Dai, Ligang He, Shuanghua Yang, and Matthew Leeke. Sarad: Spatial association-aware anomaly detection and diagnosis for multivariate time series. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:48371–48410, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Llm4hrs: Llm-based spatio-temporal imputation model for highly-sparse remote sensing data

    Shuyu Wang, Wengen Li, Hanchen Yang, Jihong Guan, Xiwei Liu, Yichao Zhang, Rufu Qin, and Shuigeng Zhou. Llm4hrs: Llm-based spatio-temporal imputation model for highly-sparse remote sensing data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Task-oriented time series imputation evaluation via generalized representers

    Zhixian Wang, Linxiao Yang, Liang Sun, Qingsong Wen, and Yi Wang. Task-oriented time series imputation evaluation via generalized representers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:137403–137431, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    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. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Shedding light on time series classification using interpretability gated networks

    Yunshi Wen, Tengfei Ma, Ronny Luss, Debarun Bhattacharjya, Achille Fokoue, and Anak Agung Julius. Shedding light on time series classification using interpretability gated networks. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Mantis: Lightweight calibrated foundation model for user-friendly time series classification

    Vasilii Feofanov, Songkang Wen, Marius Alonso, Romain Ilbert, Hongbo Guo, Malik Tiomoko, Lujia Pan, Jianfeng Zhang, and Ievgen Redko. Mantis: Lightweight calibrated foundation model for user-friendly time series classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15637, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hierarchical multimodal llms with semantic space alignment for enhanced time series classification, 2024

    Xiaoyu Tao, Tingyue Pan, Mingyue Cheng, and Yucong Luo. Hierarchical multimodal llms with semantic space alignment for enhanced time series classification, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    A survey on large language model based autonomous agents

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6):186345, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Hallgr’imsson, Maxwell A

    Winnie Chow, Lauren Gardiner, Haraldur T. Hallgr’imsson, Maxwell A. Xu, and Shirley You Ren. Towards time series reasoning with llms. ArXiv, abs/2409.11376, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Position: What can large language models tell us about time series analysis

    Ming Jin, Yifan Zhang, Wei Chen, Kexin Zhang, Yuxuan Liang, Bin Yang, Jindong Wang, Shirui Pan, and Qingsong Wen. Position: What can large language models tell us about time series analysis. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  28. [37]

    Aditya Prakash

    Haoxin Liu, Zhiyuan Zhao, Shiduo Li, and B. Aditya Prakash. Evaluating system 1 vs. 2 reasoning approaches for zero-shot time-series forecasting: A benchmark and insights, 2025. 12

    2025

  29. [38]

    Position: Empowering time series reasoning with multimodal llms, 2025

    Yaxuan Kong, Yiyuan Yang, Shiyu Wang, Chenghao Liu, Yuxuan Liang, Ming Jin, Stefan Zohren, Dan Pei, Yan Liu, and Qingsong Wen. Position: Empowering time series reasoning with multimodal llms, 2025

    2025

  30. [39]

    Mtbench: A multimodal time series benchmark for temporal reasoning and question answering

    Jialin Chen, Aosong Feng, Ziyu Zhao, Juan Garza, Gaukhar Nurbek, Cheng Qin, Ali Maatouk, Leandros Tassiulas, Yifeng Gao, and Rex Ying. Mtbench: A multimodal time series benchmark for temporal reasoning and question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16858, 2025

    2025

  31. [40]

    Chatts: Aligning time series with llms via synthetic data for enhanced understanding and reasoning

    Zhe Xie, Zeyan Li, Xiao He, Longlong Xu, Xidao Wen, Tieying Zhang, Jianjun Chen, Rui Shi, and Dan Pei. Chatts: Aligning time series with llms via synthetic data for enhanced understanding and reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03104, 2024

    2024

  32. [41]

    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. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Huma...

    2025

  33. [42]

    Large language models are zero-shot time series forecasters

    Nate Gruver, Marc Finzi, Shikai Qiu, and Andrew G Wilson. Large language models are zero-shot time series forecasters. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:19622–19635, 2023

    2023

  34. [43]

    Are language models actually useful for time series forecasting? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37: 60162–60191, 2024

    Mingtian Tan, Mike Merrill, Vinayak Gupta, Tim Althoff, and Tom Hartvigsen. Are language models actually useful for time series forecasting? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37: 60162–60191, 2024

    2024

  35. [44]

    LSTPrompt: Large language models as zero-shot time series forecasters by long-short-term prompting

    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. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 7832–7840, Au...

    2024

  36. [45]

    Understanding llms: A comprehensive overview from training to inference

    Yiheng Liu, Hao He, Tianle Han, Xu Zhang, Mengyuan Liu, Jiaming Tian, Yutong Zhang, Jiaqi Wang, Xiaohui Gao, Tianyang Zhong, et al. Understanding llms: A comprehensive overview from training to inference. Neurocomputing, page 129190, 2024

    2024

  37. [46]

    Timeseriesexam: A time series understanding exam

    Yifu Cai, Arjun Choudhry, Mononito Goswami, and Artur Dubrawski. Timeseriesexam: A time series understanding exam. In NeurIPS Workshop on Time Series in the Age of Large Models, 2024

    2024

  38. [47]

    Implicit reasoning in deep time series forecasting

    Willa Potosnak, Cristian Ignacio Challu, Mononito Goswami, Michał Wili´nski, Nina ˙Zukowska, and Artur Dubrawski. Implicit reasoning in deep time series forecasting. In NeurIPS Workshop on Time Series in the Age of Large Models, 2024

    2024

  39. [48]

    Supervised knowledge makes large language models better in-context learners

    Linyi Yang, Shuibai Zhang, Zhuohao Yu, Guangsheng Bao, Yidong Wang, Jindong Wang, Ruochen Xu, Wei Ye, Xing Xie, Weizhu Chen, and Yue Zhang. Supervised knowledge makes large language models better in-context learners. In The Eighteenth International Conference on Learning Repre...

    2024

  40. [49]

    Maddix, Michael W

    Abdul Fatir Ansari, Lorenzo Stella, Caner Turkmen, Xiyuan Zhang, Pedro Mercado, Huibin Shen, Olek- sandr Shchur, Syama Syndar Rangapuram, Sebastian Pineda Arango, Shubham Kapoor, Jasper Zschiegner, Danielle C. Maddix, Michael W. Mahoney, Kari Torkkola, Andrew Gordon Wilson, Mi...

    2024

  41. [50]

    Qwen technical report

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, et al. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [52]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al- Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [53]

    The ucr time series archive

    Hoang Anh Dau, Anthony Bagnall, Kaveh Kamgar, Chin-Chia Michael Yeh, Yan Zhu, Shaghayegh Gharghabi, Chotirat Ann Ratanamahatana, and Eamonn Keogh. The ucr time series archive. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 6(6):1293–1305, 2019. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2019.1911747

    2019

  45. [54]

    The uea multivariate time series classification archive, 2018

    Anthony Bagnall, Hoang Anh Dau, Jason Lines, Michael Flynn, James Large, Aaron Bostrom, Paul Southam, and Eamonn Keogh. The uea multivariate time series classification archive, 2018. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00075, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Time series analysis

    Jonathan D Cryer. Time series analysis. Springer, 2008. 13

    2008

  47. [56]

    Promptcast: A new prompt-based learning paradigm for time series forecasting

    Hao Xue and Flora D Salim. Promptcast: A new prompt-based learning paradigm for time series forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 36(11):6851–6864, 2023

    2023

  48. [57]

    Time series forecasting with llms: Understanding and enhancing model capabilities

    Hua Tang, Chong Zhang, Mingyu Jin, Qinkai Yu, Zhenting Wang, Xiaobo Jin, Yongfeng Zhang, and Mengnan Du. Time series forecasting with llms: Understanding and enhancing model capabilities. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 26(2):109–118, 2025

    2025

  49. [58]

    Timer: Generative pre-trained transformers are large time series models

    Yong Liu, Haoran Zhang, Chenyu Li, Xiangdong Huang, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Timer: Generative pre-trained transformers are large time series models. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  50. [59]

    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. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  51. [60]

    Iot-llm: Enhancing real-world iot task reasoning with large language models

    Tuo An, Yunjiao Zhou, Han Zou, and Jianfei Yang. Iot-llm: Enhancing real-world iot task reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02429, 2024

    2024

  52. [61]

    Instructime: Advancing time series classification with multimodal language modeling

    Mingyue Cheng, Yiheng Chen, Qi Liu, Zhiding Liu, Yucong Luo, and Enhong Chen. Instructime: Advancing time series classification with multimodal language modeling. In WSDM ’25, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3701551.3703499

    2025

  53. [62]

    Domain-oriented time series inference agents for reasoning and automated analysis, 2024

    Wen Ye, Wei Yang, Defu Cao, Yizhou Zhang, Lumingyuan Tang, Jie Cai, and Yan Liu. Domain-oriented time series inference agents for reasoning and automated analysis, 2024

    2024

  54. [63]

    Olivares, Michał Wili ´nski, Nina ˙Zukowska, and Artur Dubrawski

    Willa Potosnak, Cristian Challu, Mononito Goswami, Kin G. Olivares, Michał Wili ´nski, Nina ˙Zukowska, and Artur Dubrawski. Investigating compositional reasoning in time series foundation models, 2025

    2025

  55. [64]

    Implicit reasoning in deep time series forecasting, 2024

    Willa Potosnak, Cristian Challu, Mononito Goswami, Michał Wili ´nski, Nina ˙Zukowska, and Artur Dubrawski. Implicit reasoning in deep time series forecasting, 2024

    2024

  56. [65]

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

    Mike A. Merrill, Mingtian Tan, Vinayak Gupta, Tom Hartvigsen, and Tim Althoff. Language models still struggle to zero-shot reason about time series. CoRR, abs/2404.11757, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  57. [66]

    itrans- former: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting

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

    2024

  58. [67]

    Timexer: Empowering transformers for time series forecasting with exogenous variables

    Yuxuan Wang, Haixu Wu, Jiaxiang Dong, Yong Liu, Yunzhong Qiu, Haoran Zhang, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Timexer: Empowering transformers for time series forecasting with exogenous variables. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  59. [68]

    Foundation models for time series analysis: A tutorial and survey

    Yuxuan Liang, Haomin Wen, Yuqi Nie, Yushan Jiang, Ming Jin, Dongjin Song, Shirui Pan, and Qingsong Wen. Foundation models for time series analysis: A tutorial and survey. KDD ’24, page 6555–6565, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3637528.3671451

    2024

  60. [69]

    Llm4ts: Aligning pre-trained llms as data-efficient time-series forecasters

    Ching Chang, Wei-Yao Wang, Wen-Chih Peng, and Tien-Fu Chen. Llm4ts: Aligning pre-trained llms as data-efficient time-series forecasters. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., 2025. ISSN 2157-6904. doi: 10.1145/3719207

    2025 doi

  61. [70]

    Unitime: A language-empowered unified model for cross-domain time series forecasting

    Xu Liu, Junfeng Hu, Yuan Li, Shizhe Diao, Yuxuan Liang, Bryan Hooi, and Roger Zimmermann. Unitime: A language-empowered unified model for cross-domain time series forecasting. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, 2024

    2024

  62. [71]

    TEMPO: Prompt-based generative pre-trained transformer for time series forecasting

    Defu Cao, Furong Jia, Sercan O Arik, Tomas Pfister, Yixiang Zheng, Wen Ye, and Yan Liu. TEMPO: Prompt-based generative pre-trained transformer for time series forecasting. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  63. [72]

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

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

    2023

  64. [73]

    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. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    2021

  65. [74]

    FEDformer: Frequency enhanced decomposed transformer for long-term series forecasting

    Tian Zhou, Ziqing Ma, Qingsong Wen, Xue Wang, Liang Sun, and Rong Jin. FEDformer: Frequency enhanced decomposed transformer for long-term series forecasting. In Proc. 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2022), 2022. 14

    2022

  66. [75]

    itrans- former: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting

    Yong Liu, Tengge Hu, Haoran Zhang, Haixu Wu, Shiyu Wang, Lintao Ma, and Mingsheng Long. itrans- former: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06625, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  67. [76]

    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. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  68. [77]

    David Campos, Miao Zhang, Bin Yang, Tung Kieu, Chenjuan Guo, and Christian S. Jensen. Lightts: Lightweight time series classification with adaptive ensemble distillation. Proc. ACM Manag. Data, 1(2): 171:1–171:27, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3589316

    2023 doi

  69. [78]

    Are transformers effective for time series forecasting? Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 37(9):11121–11128, Jun

    Ailing Zeng, Muxi Chen, Lei Zhang, and Qiang Xu. Are transformers effective for time series forecasting? Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 37(9):11121–11128, Jun. 2023. 15 Appendix: Enhancing LLM Reasoning for Time Series Classification by Tailored...

    2023

  70. [79]

    and Potosnak et al. [64] demonstrate that patch-based Transformers exhibit robust generalization to systematic out-of-distribution scenarios, suggesting their intrinsic reasoning abilities surpass mere pattern memorization. However, Merrill et al. [65] evaluate LLMs on tasks s...

    2025

  71. [80]

    – Amplitude Differences: 1

    The series generally appear to be non-stationary due to the presence of spikes and shifts, but the differences in stationarity are not clear and typical across categories. – Amplitude Differences: 1. There are clear differences in amplitude across categories. Category 4 has a ...

  72. [81]

    – Amplitude Differences: 1

    All categories exhibit non-stationary behavior (e.g., shifts in mean/variance). – Amplitude Differences: 1. Amplitude ranges vary significantly. For instance, Category 2 spans 3.8 (from 1.191 to -1.89), while Category 4 spans 2.0 (from -0.759 to 1.285). These differences in ma...

  73. [82]

    Random fluctuations are minimal and consistent across categories

    All categories exhibit low noise, with values often plateauing for multiple time points. Random fluctuations are minimal and consistent across categories. – Volatility Differences:

  74. [83]

    – Structural Break Differences: 1

    Variability differs: Category 3 and Category 2 show high volatility (frequent large shifts), while Category 6 and Category 4 have stable segments followed by single sharp changes. – Structural Break Differences: 1. Structural breaks (sudden shifts) are prominent but differ in ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.