Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Structured Latent Space Modeling over Multi-Scale Temporal Patches for Multivariate Time Series Forecasting

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read M2Patch claims a structured latent space makes a linear-time CNN forecaster match or beat Transformer baselines.

desk verdict Plausible new multi-scale forecaster, but the ablation baseline is internally inconsistent and the headline counts don't add up. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19404 v1 pith:EEZXXJRE submitted 2026-07-07 cs.LG cs.AI

Xingsheng Chen , Deyu Yi , Siu-Ming Yiu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords multivariatetimeseriesforecastingmulti-scalepatchingstructuredlatentspacechannelindependencedepthwiseseparableconvolutiontemporalsmoothnesscross-scalealignmentrepresentationlearning
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

The paper claims that a forecasting model's intermediate representations should be treated as structured objects, not transient byproducts, and that organizing them with two differentiable constraints improves both accuracy and interpretability. M2Patch decomposes each channel into overlapping patches at several time scales, processes each scale with a linear-time CNN, and projects features into a compact latent space where adjacent patches are pulled together and cross-scale representations are aligned through learned mappings. On ten benchmarks the model records 57 best and 34 second-best results across 40 settings, with the largest gains on weakly correlated channels, and its latent space separates ETTm1 channels into functional groups without supervision. The relevance is that this offers a path to fast, robust, and semantically transparent forecasting without quadratic attention.

What carries the argument

The work's central object is a compact latent space per temporal scale, built from CNN features by a learned projection, and organized by two squared-Euclidean-distance penalties: intra-scale smoothness (Eq. 7), which pulls adjacent overlapping patches close along the time axis, and inter-scale alignment (Eq. 8), which aligns each finer-scale representation, after temporal pooling, with the next coarser scale through a learnable two-layer mapping. Multi-scale patching with patch length greater than stride produces the overlapping patch structure that makes smoothness meaningful, and the scale-adaptive softmax fusion (Eq. 10) lets the model weight fine versus coarse granularity per prediction

What would settle it

Re-run the Table III and Table IV Baselines under identical settings, seeds, and hyperparameters; if the Illness average MSE is stable at 1.445 or at 2.195 rather than showing a 52% swing, the regularization-ablation claims lose their basis. Likewise, rerun the eight baselines under the authors' exact protocol; if the 57/34 win-loss count changes materially, the headline effectiveness claim falls.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

M2Patch's central claim is that structuring the latent space — via an intra-scale smoothness penalty on temporally adjacent patches and an inter-scale alignment penalty that maps fine-scale representations onto coarse-scale ones — is a load-bearing modeling contribution, not an auxiliary trick. Under this design, a channel-independent CNN with multi-scale patching and depthwise separable convolutions (dilation growing as powers of two) matches or exceeds representative Transformer, MLP, and CNN baselines on most of ten benchmarks while running in linear time. The same constraints are what the paper credits for robustness to patch-level missing data and for the emergence of semantically separ

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy advantage and the regularization ablations depend on baseline numbers transcribed from other papers being comparable to the authors' own runs, and on the Baseline configuration being stable across tables — but the Baseline Illness average MSE changes from 1.445 (Table III) to 2.195 (Table IV), so the 'regularizers degrade Illness by 34.2%' conclusion is measured against a moving reference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the latent space is what carries the gains, forecasting backbones can be built from linear-time components without sacrificing accuracy, scaling to long lookback windows and many channels.
  • The robustness result implies that structured latent constraints make the model degrade gracefully under burst missing data, with coarse scales compensating for corrupted fine patches.
  • The channel-semantics result implies that per-variable latent trajectories can serve unsupervised profiling of sensors, including grouping and anomaly attribution, without labels.
  • The dynamic fusion analysis implies that multi-scale predictions are complementary across horizons, with fine scales contributing at short range and coarse scales at long range, which can guide horizon-specific model design.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper only tests semantic grouping on one dataset (ETTm1), the claim that structural priors induce physical channel organization would be strengthened if the same separation appears on other multivariate benchmarks with known groupings, such as weather stations or traffic sensors.
  • The Illness reversal, where removing regularization helps under sample scarcity, suggests an adaptive weighting schedule that anneals the regularization strength with data size could extend the method to small-sample regimes; this is not tested in the paper.
  • If the cross-scale mappings are interpretable as learned coarse-graining operators, they could be extracted and analyzed to estimate the effective timescale relationships in the data, a use the paper does not pursue.
  • The channel-independent design leaves strong channel-correlation datasets to channel-dependent models; a testable extension would be to add a lightweight channel-mixing head only for datasets with high measured inter-channel correlation, such as those flagged by the reported Pearson correlation coefficients.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes M2Patch, a channel-independent CNN architecture for multivariate time series forecasting. The model decomposes the input into multiple temporal patch scales, processes each scale with depthwise separable dilated convolutions, projects the result into a compact latent space, and imposes two auxiliary regularizers: an intra-scale smoothness term (Eq. 7) and an inter-scale alignment term with learnable cross-scale mappings (Eq. 8). The paper claims 57 best and 34 second-best results across 40 forecasting settings on ten benchmarks, linear complexity, robustness to patch-level corruption, and semantically structured latent representations. The experimental section contains effectiveness, efficiency, ablation, multi-scale configuration, training dynamics, robustness, and case studies. Code is made available.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, M2Patch offers a competitive linear-time alternative to patch-based Transformers, with the novel element being the structured latent-space regularization rather than the CNN backbone alone. The paper is honest about channel-independence limitations and about the small-sample regime where regularization hurts (Illness). The line of inquiry — replacing attention with convolutions while organizing the latent space via differentiable structural priors — is timely and plausible. The accuracy claim is based on held-out test splits, so it is not circular; the interpretability claim is a post-hoc analysis. The provision of a code URL is a strength. However, the current manuscript contains load-bearing reporting inconsistencies that prevent the evidence from supporting the headline claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §IV-B, Table II] The headline '57 best and 34 second-best results across 40 forecasting settings' is arithmetically impossible. With 10 datasets × 4 horizons = 40 settings and two metrics, there are 80 MSE/MAE cells. The bottom row of Table II also lists TimeMixer 26 best, iTransformer 21 best, Crossformer 2, TimesNet 1; summing best counts alone gives 57+26+21+2+1 = 107 > 80. Either the counting rule is different (e.g., counting per setting regardless of metric) or the numbers are wrong. The abstract's central quantitative claim cannot be evaluated until the rule is stated and corrected counts are reported.
  2. [§IV-D, §IV-E; Tables III and IV] The ablation baseline is internally inconsistent. Table III reports the full model (Baseline) on Illness with Avg MSE 1.445 (per-horizon 1.613, 1.223, 1.382, 1.563), while Table IV reports the same Baseline as 2.195 (2.273, 2.188, 1.904, 2.415). Table IV's 'Pure Forecast' row, however, is exactly 1.445 with the same per-horizon values as Table III's Baseline. The ETTh1 and ECL Baseline values also differ across tables (0.425 vs 0.429; 0.186 vs 0.188; cf. Table V '3-Scale': 0.427 and 0.193). Consequently the claimed 6.8% degradation on ETTh1 and 34.2% improvement on Illness from removing both regularizers are comparisons against a moving reference and are not controlled ablation evidence. Please rerun with identical configuration and report seed-level variation.
  3. [§IV-I and Fig. 5] The semantic-grouping claim is not a controlled test of the regularizers. M2Patch differs from iTransformer in backbone, tokenization, and training objective; the comparison cannot identify 'the structural priors embedded in M2Patch' as the cause of the UMAP separation. An ablation of M2Patch with L_intra/L_inter removed (or a matched encoder with/without the regularizers) is needed before claiming that the forecasting objective alone does not induce semantic structure. This does not affect the accuracy tables, but it is load-bearing for the knowledge-discovery contribution advertised in the introduction.
  4. [Table II caption; §IV-A] The win/loss counts in Table II depend on baseline numbers 'sourced from [5, 34]' for most cells, while only Illness baselines and TimeMixer on Exchange were reproduced. If the source papers used different input lengths (e.g., L=336 vs. L=96), normalization, or train/validation splits, the comparisons are not protocol-matched. Please verify and state that the transcribed numbers were obtained under the same protocol as the M2Patch runs, or rerun the affected baselines. The count is otherwise not trustworthy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table IV caption; Eq. (7)] Table IV calls the baseline intra-scale loss 'first-order total variation (TV1)', but Eq. (7) is a sum of squared Euclidean distances between successive latent vectors; that is TV^2, not TV1. Please reconcile the terminology and formula.
  2. [§IV-B; Table II] The text says M2Patch 'ties for best' on ETTm2, but Table II gives TimeMixer a lower average MSE (0.275 vs 0.276). If the tie refers to MAE, please say so explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 5] The caption mentions the Adjusted Rand Index but no ARI values are reported in the text or figure. Please include quantitative values for both M2Patch and iTransformer.
  4. [Eq. (3)] The notation (B×N) is used but B is never defined. Please clarify that variables are stacked along the batch dimension in channel-independent processing.
  5. [§II-B; Algorithm 1] Minor presentation issues: 'V AR' should be 'VAR'; Algorithm 1 line 16 writes the total loss without the normalizing constants used in Eqs. (7)–(9). Please align the notations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: headline accuracy claims are held-out comparisons to external baselines, and the latent-space regularizers are evaluated by ablation rather than derived from their own definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: multi-scale patching (Eq. 2), CNN feature extraction (Eqs. 3-5), latent projection (Eq. 6), the two auxiliary regularizers (Eqs. 7-8), total objective (Eq. 9), and scale-adaptive fusion (Eq. 10). The 'structured latent space' is a design objective, not a predicted quantity; Eqs. 7 and 8 literally define the losses that are minimized, so statements that they enforce temporal smoothness or cross-scale alignment are true by construction and not presented as a derived prediction. The headline forecasting results in Table II are computed on held-out test splits against external baselines sourced from [5,34] or re-run by the authors, so the win/loss counts do not reduce to the model's training fit. The central contribution is supported by ablations rather than by a fitted-parameter-renamed-as-prediction step. There is a serious internal inconsistency in the ablation evidence: the Illness 'Baseline' differs between Table III (Avg MSE 1.445) and Table IV (Avg MSE 2.195), while Table IV's 'Pure Forecast' row reproduces Table III's Baseline exactly (1.445, with identical per-horizon values). This undermines the Section IV-E attribution of the 'Illness reversal' to sample scarcity, and Section IV-I claims latent-space separation 'under the Adjusted Rand Index' without reporting the ARI value. These are experimental-integrity and reporting weaknesses, not circularity: no claimed result is equivalent to its input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the only self-citation ([9]) is background and not load-bearing. Therefore the paper shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

M2Patch combines known building blocks (multi-scale patching, depthwise separable dilated convolutions, L2 latent regularizers), so the free parameters are manual configuration choices the experiments depend on: patch sizes/strides, scale count, latent dimension, and regularization weights. The paper's Limitations section explicitly concedes the multi-scale configuration is chosen per dataset. The axioms are domain assumptions about channel independence, temporal smoothness, and cross-scale consistency, each asserted as a prior with mixed empirical support. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'structured latent space' is a learned representation whose only falsifiable handles are the benchmark numbers, so the invented-entities ledger is empty.

free parameters (5)
  • regularization weights lambda_intra, lambda_inter = not reported
    Control the two auxiliary loss terms in the total objective (Eq. 9; Algorithm 1 line 18). Section IV-E says both are evaluated under a unified weight lambda but no value is given; chosen by validation.
  • per-scale patch lengths P_s and strides S_s = not reported
    Manual per-dataset choices. The paper's own Limitations section states 'the multi-scale configuration is specified manually per dataset, requiring prior knowledge of dominant temporal periods.'
  • number of scales K = 2 or 3
    Section III-E says K in {2,3} suffices, confirmed by the scale ablation (Table V); not derived from data properties.
  • latent dimension d_m (and embedding dimension d) = 64 (with d=256)
    Section IV-D mentions compressing 256 to 64 dimensions; the choice affects the compression bottleneck and the regularized geometry, and no selection criterion is given.
  • CNN backbone hyperparameters (blocks E, kernel size k, dilation schedule) = not reported
    The ablation 'w/o Temporal Conv' (Table III) shows sensitivity to the dilation hierarchy, yet no numerical configuration of the backbone is reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Channel independence improves robustness to distribution shift and limits overfitting.
    Adopted from references [27,28,29] and used to justify the channel-independent design (Section II-C); the paper's own results show it trails channel-dependent models on ECL/Traffic/Solar.
  • ad hoc to paper Temporally adjacent overlapping patches ought to map to nearby latent points (temporal smoothness prior).
    Encoded as the intra-scale loss (Eq. 7). The paper asserts this prior rather than deriving it, and Table IV shows it hurts accuracy on ECL and Illness.
  • ad hoc to paper Fine and coarse scales should encode mutually consistent representations via a learnable mapping.
    Encoded as the inter-scale loss (Eq. 8) with cross-scale mapping Phi_s; asserted as a structural prior, and its removal is nearly harmless on data-rich regimes (Table IV(a)).
  • domain assumption Exponentially growing dilation yields useful hierarchical receptive fields for time series.
    Standard CNN prior invoked in Section III-B; supported by the w/o Temporal Conv ablation but not proven, and the ablation removes multiple mechanisms at once.
  • domain assumption Baseline results sourced from [5, 34] are directly comparable to the authors' runs.
    Table II transcribes most baseline numbers from the TimeMixer (2024) paper and the S-Mamba benchmark paper; split, normalization, input length, and training budget comparability is never verified, and the headline win/loss counts depend on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structured Latent Space Modeling over Multi-Scale Temporal Patches for Multivariate Time Series Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEZXXJRE

@misc{pith2026260719404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structured Latent Space Modeling over Multi-Scale Temporal Patches for Multivariate Time Series Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEZXXJRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19404}
}
read the original abstract

Multivariate time series encode structural patterns that unfold across multiple temporal scales, yet most forecasting backbones treat learned representations as transient byproducts of prediction, leaving the organizational geometry of these patterns underexploited. We introduce M2Patch, a CNN-based forecasting architecture that maps channel-independent multivariate observations into a structured latent space through two complementary differentiable constraints. Multi-scale patching decomposes the input into overlapping temporal granularities; depthwise separable convolutions with progressive dilation extract scale-specific features in linear time; and per-scale learned projections compress these features into a compact latent representation. The latent space is organized by an intra-scale smoothness constraint that enforces temporal continuity between adjacent patches, and an inter-scale alignment constraint, realized through learnable cross-scale mappings, that restores cross-granularity interaction within the channel-independent design, ensuring that all scales encode mutually consistent representations of the underlying dynamics. Experiments on ten real-world benchmarks show that M2Patch achieves 57 best and 34 second-best results across 40 forecasting settings, matching or exceeding representative baselines on most benchmarks while maintaining linear computational complexity and robustness to patch-level input corruption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19404 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Framework of M2Patch: A forecasting model with structured latent space modeling over multi-scale temporal patches. construction CI discards inter-variable interactions, which can be suboptimal for datasets governed by strong cross-variable dependencies [30]; recovering such dependencies therefore calls for post-hoc analysis of learned latent representations rather than architectural coupling. Beyond forecasting, lea… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of efficiency experimental results between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Training dynamics on ETTm1. (a) Loss convergence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Patch-level missing-value robustness of M2Patch on ETTm1 across four forecast horizons. For each mask ratio r, bars on the left axis report the test MSE of Phase A and Phase B; curves on the right axis report the corresponding relative MSE increase over the clean basel…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: UMAP [35] projection of frozen-encoder window￾channel embeddings on ETTm1. Three colors mark the ground-truth functional groups that are never disclosed to the model during training: Useful Load, Loss Load, and Oil￾Temperature. (a) M2Patch organizes the three groups in…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Case study on ETTm1 across four scenarios (HUFL Day 1, LULL Day 1, HUFL Day 2, OT Day 4). Left: per-scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dynamic per-scale effective contribution over the pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Autoformer: De- composition transformers with auto-correlation for long- term series forecasting,

    H. Wu, J. Xu, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Autoformer: De- composition transformers with auto-correlation for long- term series forecasting,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 22 419–22 430, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    iTransformer: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting,

    Y . Liu, T. Hu, H. Zhang, H. Wu, S. Wang, L. Ma, and M. Long, “iTransformer: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

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

    Y . Zhang and J. Yan, “Crossformer: Transformer utilizing cross-dimension dependency for multivariate time series forecasting,” inThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=vSVLM2j9eie

    2023

  4. [4]

    A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers,

    Y . Nie, N. H. Nguyen, P. Sinthong, and J. Kalagnanam, “A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.net/forum?id=Jbdc0vTOcol

    2023

  5. [5]

    TimeMixer: Decomposable multi- scale mixing for time series forecasting,

    S. Wang, H. Wu, X. Shi, T. Hu, H. Luo, L. Ma, J. Y . Zhang, and J. Zhou, “TimeMixer: Decomposable multi- scale mixing for time series forecasting,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Time series forecasting via direct per-step probability distribution modeling,

    L. Kong and X. Hong, “Time series forecasting via direct per-step probability distribution modeling,” inProceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 40, no. 27, 2026, pp. 22 653–22 661

    2026

  7. [7]

    A riemannian network for spd matrix learning,

    Z. Huang and L. Van Gool, “A riemannian network for spd matrix learning,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 31, no. 1, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    Manifoldformer: Geomet- ric deep learning for neural dynamics on riemannian manifolds,

    Y . Fu, L. He, and Q. Chen, “Manifoldformer: Geomet- ric deep learning for neural dynamics on riemannian manifolds,” inICASSP 2026-2026 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2026, pp. 6801–6805

    2026

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Spdm: Geometry-modulated state space modeling with manifold constraints for time series forecasting,

    X. Chen and S. M. Yiu, “Spdm: Geometry-modulated state space modeling with manifold constraints for time series forecasting,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.09917, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence mod- eling with selective state spaces,

    A. Gu and T. Dao, “Mamba: Linear-time sequence mod- eling with selective state spaces,” inFirst Conference on Language Modeling (COLM), 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Arima models,

    R. H. Shumway and D. S. Stoffer, “Arima models,” inTime series analysis and its applications: with R examples. Springer, 2017, pp. 75–163

    2017

  4. [12]

    Vector autoregressive models for multivariate time series,

    E. Zivot and J. Wang, “Vector autoregressive models for multivariate time series,”Modeling financial time series with S-PLUS®, pp. 385–429, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Transformers in time series: A survey,

    Q. Wen, T. Zhou, C. Zhang, W. Chen, Z. Ma, J. Yan, and L. Sun, “Transformers in time series: A survey,” inProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2023, pp. 6778–6786

    2023

  7. [15]

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

    H. Zhou, S. Zhang, J. Peng, S. Zhang, J. Li, H. Xiong, and W. Zhang, “Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,” inProceed- ings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 35, no. 12, 2021, pp. 11 106–11 115

    2021

  8. [16]

    FEDformer: Frequency enhanced decomposed trans- former for long-term series forecasting,

    T. Zhou, Z. Ma, Q. Wen, X. Wang, L. Sun, and R. Jin, “FEDformer: Frequency enhanced decomposed trans- former for long-term series forecasting,” inProceed- ings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. ...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Are transform- ers effective for time series forecasting?

    A. Zeng, M. Chen, L. Zhang, and Q. Xu, “Are transform- ers effective for time series forecasting?” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 37, no. 9, 2023, pp. 11 121–11 128

    2023

  10. [18]

    Long-term forecasting with TiDE: Time-series dense encoder,

    A. Das, W. Kong, A. Leach, S. Mathur, R. Sen, and R. Yu, “Long-term forecasting with TiDE: Time-series dense encoder,”Transactions on Machine Learning Re- search, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    An empirical evalua- tion of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling,

    S. Bai, J. Z. Kolter, and V . Koltun, “An empirical evalua- tion of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling,”arXiv:1803.01271, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    ModernTCN: A modern pure convolution structure for general time series analysis,

    L. donghao and wang xue, “ModernTCN: A modern pure convolution structure for general time series analysis,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview. net/forum?id=vpJMJerXHU

    2024

  13. [21]

    Deep time series models: A comprehensive survey and benchmark,

    Y . Wang, H. Wu, J. Dong, Y . Liu, C. Wang, M. Long, and J. Wang, “Deep time series models: A comprehensive survey and benchmark,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, pp. 1–20, 2026

    2026

  14. [22]

    Ctfnet: Long-sequence time-series forecasting based on convolution and time–frequency analysis,

    Z. Zhang, Y . Chen, D. Zhang, Y . Qian, and H. Wang, 14 “Ctfnet: Long-sequence time-series forecasting based on convolution and time–frequency analysis,”IEEE Trans- actions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 16 368–16 382, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

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

    H. Wu, T. Hu, Y . Liu, H. Zhou, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis,” inThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations,

  16. [24]

    Periodpatch: A frequency-aware modular framework with patch-based embedding and periodic bias for multivariate time series forecasting,

    H. Peng, S. Jiang, J. Ren, H. Liu, Y . Yuan, Y . Xin, and Y . Chen, “Periodpatch: A frequency-aware modular framework with patch-based embedding and periodic bias for multivariate time series forecasting,”Neural Networks, p. 108979, 2026

    2026

  17. [25]

    Recast: Reliability-aware codebook-assisted lightweight time series forecasting,

    X. Ma, T. Chen, P. Wang, X. Li, and C. Zhang, “Recast: Reliability-aware codebook-assisted lightweight time series forecasting,”Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 40, no. 29, p. 24299–24307, Mar. 2026. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10....

    2026 doi

  18. [26]

    Gaussian adaptive patching powered fully- connected spatial-temporal graph for multivariate time- series data,

    Y . Wang, M. Wu, Y . Xu, J. Yang, X. Li, L. Xie, and Z. Chen, “Gaussian adaptive patching powered fully- connected spatial-temporal graph for multivariate time- series data,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, pp. 1–18, 2026

    2026

  19. [27]

    Dish-ts: A general paradigm for alleviating distribution shift in time series forecasting,

    W. Fan, P. Wang, D. Wang, D. Wang, Y . Zhou, and Y . Fu, “Dish-ts: A general paradigm for alleviating distribution shift in time series forecasting,”Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 6, p. 7522–7529, Jun. 2023. [Online]. Available: htt...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Reversible instance normalization for accurate time-series forecasting against distribution shift,

    T. Kim, J. Kim, Y . Tae, C. Park, J.-H. Choi, and J. Choo, “Reversible instance normalization for accurate time-series forecasting against distribution shift,” inThe Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022. [Online]. Available: https://openrevie...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Koopman neural operator forecaster for time-series with temporal distributional shifts,

    R. Wang, Y . Dong, S. ¨O. Arik, and R. Yu, “Koopman neural operator forecaster for time-series with temporal distributional shifts,” inThe Eleventh International Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Disents: Disentangled channel evolving pattern modeling for multivariate time series forecasting,

    Z. Liu, J. Yang, Q. Mao, Y . Zhao, M. Cheng, Z. Li, Q. Liu, and E. Chen, “Disents: Disentangled channel evolving pattern modeling for multivariate time series forecasting,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, pp. 1–15, 2026

    2026

  23. [31]

    Generalized dimension-reduction framework for recent-biased time series analysis,

    Y . Zhao and S. Zhang, “Generalized dimension-reduction framework for recent-biased time series analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 231–244, 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    Time-series classification with cote: the collective of transformation-based ensembles,

    A. Bagnall, J. Lines, J. Hills, and A. Bostrom, “Time-series classification with cote: the collective of transformation-based ensembles,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 2522–2535, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Multivariate time-series classification using the hidden-unit logistic model,

    W. Pei, H. Dibeklio ˘glu, D. M. Tax, and L. van der Maaten, “Multivariate time-series classification using the hidden-unit logistic model,”IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 920– 931, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Is mamba effective for time se- ries forecasting?

    Z. Wang, F. Kong, S. Feng, M. Wang, X. Yang, H. Zhao, D. Wang, and Y . Zhang, “Is mamba effective for time se- ries forecasting?”Neurocomputing, vol. 619, p. 129178, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction,

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, and J. Melville, “Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations,

    J. MacQueen, “Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations,” inProceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, vol. 1, 1967, pp. 281–297

    1967

  29. [37]

    Comparing partitions,

    L. Hubert and P. Arabie, “Comparing partitions,”Journal of Classification, vol. 2, pp. 193–218, 1985

    1985

  30. [2023]

    Available: https://openreview.net/forum? id=ju Uqw384Oq

    [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum? id=ju Uqw384Oq

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.