Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Battling the Non-stationarity in Time Series Forecasting via Test-time Adaptation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a frozen time series forecaster can be adapted at test time by attaching gated calibration modules and scheduling their adaptation with periodicity-aware partial ground truth, yielding consistent error reductions…

desk verdict Useful plug-in wrapper for test-time adaptation in forecasting, but the paper's own Table 2 contradicts its 'consistently excels' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04970 v1 pith:GRMAMZJI submitted 2025-01-09 cs.LG cs.AI

HyunGi Kim , Siwon Kim , Jisoo Mok , Sungroh Yoon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords test-timeadaptationtimeseriesforecastingnon-stationaritydistributionshiftpartially-observedgroundtruthperiodicity-awareschedulinggatedcalibrationfrozensourceforecaster
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 introduces TAFAS, a test-time adaptation framework for time series forecasting that keeps the pretrained source forecaster frozen and instead adapts lightweight calibration modules attached at its input and output. The key idea is to exploit the sequential arrival of ground truth: after a short wait, the first p values of the forecast window become known, and TAFAS uses them as a training signal before full ground truth arrives. A periodicity-aware scheduler chooses p from the dominant FFT frequency of the look-back window, balancing semantic content against adaptation delay. The adapted modules then recalibrate inputs to the distribution the source model handles and remap predictions back to the shifted test distribution. The paper reports consistent MSE reductions across six architectures and seven benchmarks, with the largest gains in long-horizon forecasting and on a foundation model where error drops by up to 45%.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Gated Calibration Module (GCM), a variable-wise affine correction of the form $\mathrm{GCM}(X_t)=X_t+\mathrm{Tile}(\tanh(\alpha))\circ(\mathrm{Concat}(\{W^c X_t^c\}_{c=1}^C)+b)$, with $W$ and $b$ zero-initialized so the module starts as the identity. It is attached once before and once after the frozen forecaster, giving the framework its model-agnosticism. The periodicity-aware scheduler (PAAS) supplies the timing signal: it computes an FFT over the first test look-back window, picks the variable with the highest summed power and then the dominant frequency, and sets the partial-ground-truth length $p=\lceil L/f^*\rceil$. That $p$ determines the test mini-batch size and therefore how long adaptation waits; the prediction-adjustment step then stitches adapted predictions into the unobserved part of the forecast horizon. Together these components allow MSE-based adaptation with delayed labels instead of the entropy-based losses used in classification test-time adaptation.

What would settle it

Run TAFAS on a series with a strong non-stationary shift but no dominant periodicity, such as a random walk with drift or a sudden level change, and compare MSE against the frozen source forecaster: if TAFAS fails to improve or increases error, the periodicity-based scheduling is the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TAFAS claims that a frozen source forecaster can be kept reliable under continuous distribution shift without retraining any of its parameters. Adaptation happens through Gated Calibration Modules (GCMs) placed on both ends of the forecaster: an input GCM maps each shifted look-back window into a calibrated window, and an output GCM maps the prediction back to the shifted test distribution. Both modules are variable-wise affine transformations with zero-initialized weights and a tanh-gated scale, so early in the test stream they act as the identity and only begin correcting as distribution shift accumulates. To decide when to adapt, Periodicity-Aware Adaptation Scheduling applies an FFT to the first test look-back window, extracts the dominant frequency, and sets the partially-observed ground truth length p to the corresponding period. TAFAS then trains the two GCMs on the MSE between the calibrated prediction's first p steps and that partial ground truth, plus a full-ground-truth term from the previous mini-batch, and finally replaces the unobserved tail of the original predictions with the adapted predictions. The paper argues this pipeline is model-agnostic and consistently improves test error, especially for long forecast horizons where distribution shift is most severe.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that the dominant frequency found by the FFT on the first look-back window corresponds to a period p such that the first p ground-truth values are semantically useful for adaptation, which can fail on aperiodic streams or when the FFT peak is spurious.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TAFAS reduces test MSE for Transformer-, linear-, and MLP-based forecasters across seven benchmarks, with the largest relative gains at long horizons (H=336 and H=720).
  • Combining TAFAS with normalization modules such as RevIN, Dish-TS, and SAN further improves their test-time robustness, and in one setting rescues a forecaster whose MSE jumped from 0.367 to 1.071, bringing it down by 66%.
  • Applied to the Chronos foundation model on ETT datasets that were not in pretraining, TAFAS cuts test MSE by up to 45%.
  • At H=720, TAFAS beats the online TSF baselines FSNet and OneNet on most datasets, supporting the claim that proactive partial-ground-truth adaptation outperforms from-scratch online training in this setting.
  • Ablations removing PAAS, GCM, or prediction adjustment each degrade performance, so the full pipeline, not any single module, is what the paper credits for the gains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The design suggests a general recipe for regression tasks with delayed labels: freeze the backbone, attach identity-initialized input and output calibrators, and schedule adaptation on partial labels, a pattern not limited to forecasting-specific architectures.
  • A testable extension would run PAAS per variable instead of picking one dominant variable, since variables with different periods may need different adaptation schedules.
  • The large improvement on a foundation model hints that lightweight per-stream calibration could be a cheaper alternative to fine-tuning for time series foundation models, though the paper only tests one foundation model.
  • A stress test for the gating mechanism would be a stream whose shift reverses direction, checking whether the tanh-gated affine correction can re-center rather than only correct a monotone drift.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TAFAS, a test-time adaptation framework for time series forecasting. TAFAS consists of PAAS, which uses the dominant FFT period of the initial look-back window to set the length of partially-observed ground truth (POGT), and a GCM, which applies input and output gated affine calibrations to the frozen source forecaster. The loss is a combination of MSE on the POGT and on full ground truth from previous mini-batches, and after adaptation the unobserved part of each prediction is replaced with the recalibrated prediction. Experiments cover seven datasets, six forecasting architectures, three normalization modules, and the Chronos foundation model, with the central claim that TAFAS consistently improves forecasting errors, especially under long horizons.

Significance. The idea of using partially-observed ground truth and a periodicity-aware schedule for test-time adaptation is practically motivated and the experimental scope is broad. The paper includes a PyTorch-style pseudocode, component ablation, a hyperparameter robustness study on one dataset, and comparisons with online forecasting methods. However, the central universality claim is contradicted by the paper's own tables, especially Table 2, where many configurations show large MSE increases. Because the paper markets TAFAS as a model- and data-agnostic plug-and-play wrapper, these counterexamples are load-bearing and currently undermine the main conclusion. The contribution would be significant if the claims were appropriately qualified, the failure cases analyzed, and the hyperparameter-selection protocol clarified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Compatibility with Methods Addressing Non-stationarity in Pre-training time (Table 2)] Table 2 directly contradicts the statement in this section that "Across all datasets and architectures, TAFAS further improves the forecasting capability." For instance, iTransformer+Dish-TS on Exchange degrades from 0.199 to 0.310 at H=192, from 0.366 to 0.546 at H=336, and from 0.919 to 1.529 at H=720; DLinear+Dish-TS on Illness degrades at all four horizons, e.g., from 2.778 to 2.865 at H=24 and from 2.549 to 2.785 at H=60; and FreTS+SAN on Illness degrades from 2.530 to 2.661 at H=36, from 2.246 to 2.434 at H=48, and from 2.068 to 2.453 at H=60. Because the paper presents TAFAS as a model- and data-agnostic wrapper whose consistency is the central contribution, these regressions must be either prevented by the method or explicitly characterized as limitations with concrete guidance on when TAFAS should not be applied.
  2. [TAFAS on Various TSF Architectures (Table 1)] The claim that "TAFAS consistently reduces the forecasting error at test-time" is not supported by Table 1. There are multiple degradations: DLinear on Exchange at H=96 rises from 0.078 to 0.079, iTransformer on Illness at H=24 rises from 2.119 to 2.124, MICN on Illness rises from 3.280 to 3.306 at H=24 and from 3.503 to 3.524 at H=36, and PatchTST on Illness shows no improvement for H=24–60. The paper should quantify the proportion of dataset-horizon-model settings where TAFAS improves, worsens, or leaves MSE unchanged rather than relying on average improvement, and it should temper the word "consistently" accordingly.
  3. [Appendix: Algorithm of TAFAS (Algorithm 1, Table A5)] Algorithm 1 computes a POGT of length `period` (line 28: `POGT = test_batch[-1][-period:]`) and then forms `l_p = MSE(pred_cali[:period], POGT)` (line 34). However, for Illness, Table A5 reports POGT lengths p=36 while Table 1 evaluates forecasting horizons H=24 and H=36. When p > H, `pred_cali` has only H entries, so `pred_cali[:period]` cannot match the POGT shape unless p is clipped or the loss is computed over overlapping shifted predictions; the paper does not state this. Please specify the exact loss computation, including any cap on p and the alignment rule across the multiple windows in the mini-batch, since this is required to reproduce the reported Illness results.
  4. [Appendix: Training Details] The paper does not state how the two TAFAS-specific hyperparameters, the test-time learning rate μ and the gating initialization α, are selected. The appendix lists only the search ranges, and Table A3 reports robustness on a single dataset, ETTh1. If μ and α are tuned on the test split, the reported MSE improvements are not a valid estimate of deployment performance. Please clarify whether the selection is made on the validation or test split, and, if test-set tuning was used, report results with fixed hyperparameters chosen on the validation split or a cross-validation procedure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table A6] The text says "When TAFAS is applied, most standard deviations are 0.000," but Table A6 lists many non-zero standard deviations (e.g., 0.001, 0.002, 0.031); additionally, the DLinear Illness H=48 MAE value "0.015" appears to be a typo for "1.015".
  2. [Table A1] The sentence "A higher ADF test statistic suggests greater non-stationarity" is imprecise because the ADF statistic is negative; "higher" should be "less negative" or "closer to zero" to avoid confusion.
  3. [Figure A3] The y-axis ranges for the Weather panels (e.g., 0.5 to 3.5) do not match the MSE magnitudes reported for Weather in Table 1; please check the axes or the scale of the plotted values.
  4. [Equation (7)] In Eq. (7), the index i is used both as a time-step index and as a position within the prediction vector; please define the range of i explicitly to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Table 4] The source forecaster used for TAFAS is not identified in Table 4; please specify which backbone and hyperparameters are used so that the comparison with FSNet and OneNet is reproducible.
  6. [Abstract and Introduction] The paper describes TAFAS as "pioneering" TSF-TTA, but the Related Works section does not discuss any prior test-time adaptation methods for time series forecasting; if none exist, please say so explicitly rather than implying a survey.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TAFAS adapts a frozen forecaster with supervised losses on partially observed and full ground truth, and evaluates on future steps distinct from the fitted GCM inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirically self-contained rather than circular. PAAS selects the POGT length p from an FFT of the first look-back window (Eqs. 1-2), then GCM parameters are fitted by minimizing MSE against partially observed and full ground truth (Eqs. 4-6). The fitted GCM is then used to recalculate predictions, and only the unobserved portion of each original prediction is replaced (Eq. 7); the POGT portion used in the adaptation loss is explicitly retained at its pre-adaptation calibrated values, so the reported future-step errors are not generated by the same ground-truth values that fitted the module. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction of that same subset. The related-work citation to Lee et al. 2024 (DEYO) includes a co-author, but it is used only as context for existing entropy-based TTA methods and is not load-bearing for the TAFAS derivation. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled via citation, or renaming of a known result appears. The strongest legitimate concern in the manuscript is that Table 2 contains settings where TAFAS increases MSE, contradicting the 'consistently excels' claim; however, overstatement of empirical robustness is a correctness and evaluation concern, not a circularity of the derivation. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method's success depends on several unproven modeling assumptions: periodicity of the test stream, sufficiency of affine calibration, and preservation of semantics by freezing. These are reasonable domain assumptions but are not derived from first principles.

free parameters (2)
  • test-time learning rate μ = searched in {5e-3, 3e-3, 1e-3, 5e-4, 1e-4}; selected setting not reported per result
    Controls the size of GCM updates at test time; reported gains could depend on the selected value.
  • gating initialization α = searched in {0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.3}; selected setting not reported per result
    Initial gate strength influences how much calibration is applied before any adaptation has occurred.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The dominant frequency of the first look-back window identifies a period p such that p observed future values carry semantically meaningful information for adaptation.
    PAAS uses FFT on X_t0 to set POGT length; if the stream is not periodic, this assumption can fail. Section 'Periodicity-Aware Adaptation Scheduling (PAAS)', Equations 1 and 2.
  • domain assumption An affine residual transform on input and output windows is sufficient to map shifted test distributions back to the distribution the frozen forecaster handles.
    GCM design assumes a variable-wise linear calibration plus gate can remove local and global shifts; no analysis is given for nonlinear shift types. Section 'Gated Calibration Module (GCM)', Equation 3.
  • domain assumption Freezing the source forecaster preserves core semantic information while GCM adaptation absorbs distribution shift.
    The claim that core semantics are preserved rests on this design choice; the ablation in Table 5 shows adapting internal modules degrades performance, which is consistent with the assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • Gated Calibration Module (GCM)
    purpose: Input and output affine residual calibration with tanh gating to map shifted test inputs and predictions back to the source distribution
    A new module introduced by the paper; its efficacy is only demonstrated in the paper's own experiments, with no external or machine-checked validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Battling the Non-stationarity in Time Series Forecasting via Test-time Adaptation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GRMAMZJI

@misc{pith2026250104970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Battling the Non-stationarity in Time Series Forecasting via Test-time Adaptation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GRMAMZJI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04970}
}
read the original abstract

Deep Neural Networks have spearheaded remarkable advancements in time series forecasting (TSF), one of the major tasks in time series modeling. Nonetheless, the non-stationarity of time series undermines the reliability of pre-trained source time series forecasters in mission-critical deployment settings. In this study, we introduce a pioneering test-time adaptation framework tailored for TSF (TSF-TTA). TAFAS, the proposed approach to TSF-TTA, flexibly adapts source forecasters to continuously shifting test distributions while preserving the core semantic information learned during pre-training. The novel utilization of partially-observed ground truth and gated calibration module enables proactive, robust, and model-agnostic adaptation of source forecasters. Experiments on diverse benchmark datasets and cutting-edge architectures demonstrate the efficacy and generality of TAFAS, especially in long-term forecasting scenarios that suffer from significant distribution shifts. The code is available at https://github.com/kimanki/TAFAS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04970 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The performance of a pre-trained source fore [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of TAFAS. (1: Blue) By computing the periodicity of dominant patterns for Xt ∗ , PAAS determines the length of partially-observed ground truth (POGT) pt ∗ . (2: Yellow) Then input and output GCMs are proactively adapted on Xt ∗ at t ∗ + pt ∗ to mitigate local and global distribution shifts through Temporal Calibration (TC) and gating (tanh) mechanisms, by minimizing MSE between the POGT and corresponding… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of PAAS against using a fixed POGT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

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. Accurate Parameter-Efficient Test-Time Adaptation for Time Series Forecasting

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PETSA adapts frozen time-series forecasters at test time using gated low-rank input and output calibration modules and a combined robust, frequency, and structural loss, matching or beating full-model TTA with far few...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

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

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

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Ao, S.-I.; and Fayek, H. 2023. Continual Deep Learning for Time Series Modeling. Sensors, 23(16): 7167

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    L.; Kiros, J

    Ba, J. L.; Kiros, J. R.; and Hinton, G. E. 2016. Layer Normalization. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06450.pdf

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    G.; Oreshkin, B

    Challu, C.; Olivares, K. G.; Oreshkin, B. N.; Garza, F.; Mergenthaler, M.; and Dubrawski, A. 2022. N-HiTS: Neural Hierarchical Interpolation for Time Series Forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12886

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Das, A.; Kong, W.; Leach, A.; Mathur, S.; Sen, R.; and Yu, R. 2023. Long-term forecasting with tide: Time-series dense encoder. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08424

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Das, A.; Kong, W.; Sen, R.; and Zhou, Y. 2024. A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Ekambaram, V.; Jati, A.; Nguyen, N.; Sinthong, P.; and Kalagnanam, J. 2023. Tsmixer: Lightweight mlp-mixer model for multivariate time series forecasting. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 459--469

    2023

  2. [10]

    J.; and Stock, J

    Elliott, G.; Rothenberg, T. J.; and Stock, J. H. 1992. Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root

    1992

  3. [11]

    Fan, W.; Wang, P.; Wang, D.; Wang, D.; Zhou, Y.; and Fu, Y. 2023. Dish-ts: a general paradigm for alleviating distribution shift in time series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37(6), 7522--7529

    2023

  4. [12]

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

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Q.; and Murray-Smith, R

    Girard, A.; Rasmussen, C.; Candela, J. Q.; and Murray-Smith, R. 2002. Gaussian process priors with uncertain inputs application to multiple-step ahead time series forecasting. Advances in neural information processing systems, 15

    2002

  6. [14]

    Gong, T.; Jeong, J.; Kim, T.; Kim, Y.; Shin, J.; and Lee, S.-J. 2022. NOTE : Robust Continual Test-time Adaptation Against Temporal Correlation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Goswami, M.; Szafer, K.; Choudhry, A.; Cai, Y.; Li, S.; and Dubrawski, A. 2024. MOMENT: A Family of Open Time-series Foundation Models. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  8. [16]

    Guo, T.; Xu, Z.; Yao, X.; Chen, H.; Aberer, K.; and Funaya, K. 2016. Robust online time series prediction with recurrent neural networks. In 2016 IEEE international conference on data science and advanced analytics (DSAA), 816--825. Ieee

    2016

  9. [17]

    Hosseinnia Shavaki, F.; and Ebrahimi Ghahnavieh, A. 2023. Applications of deep learning into supply chain management: a systematic literature review and a framework for future research. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(5): 4447--4489

    2023

  10. [18]

    J.; and Athanasopoulos, G

    Hyndman, R. J.; and Athanasopoulos, G. 2018. Forecasting: principles and practice. OTexts

    2018

  11. [19]

    Ioffe, S.; and Szegedy, C. 2015. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning, 448--456. pmlr

    2015

  12. [20]

    Kim, T.; Kim, J.; Tae, Y.; Park, C.; Choi, J.-H.; and Choo, J. 2021. Reversible instance normalization for accurate time-series forecasting against distribution shift. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  13. [21]

    P.; and Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P.; and Ba, J. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kitaev, N.; Kaiser, .; and Levskaya, A. 2020. Reformer: The efficient transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04451

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kuznetsov, V.; and Mohri, M. 2014. Generalization bounds for time series prediction with non-stationary processes. In Algorithmic Learning Theory: 25th International Conference, ALT 2014, Bled, Slovenia, October 8-10, 2014. Proceedings 25, 260--274. Springer

    2014

  16. [24]

    Lee, J.; Jung, D.; Lee, S.; Park, J.; Shin, J.; Hwang, U.; and Yoon, S. 2024. Entropy is not Enough for Test-Time Adaptation: From the Perspective of Disentangled Factors. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  17. [25]

    Li, M.; Zhu, Y.; Shen, Y.; and Angelova, M. 2023 a . Clustering-enhanced stock price prediction using deep learning. World wide web, 26(1): 207--232

    2023

  18. [26]

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

    2019

  19. [27]

    Li, Z.; Qi, S.; Li, Y.; and Xu, Z. 2023 b . Revisiting long-term time series forecasting: An investigation on linear mapping. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10721

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Liu, H.; Dong, Z.; Jiang, R.; Deng, J.; Deng, J.; Chen, Q.; and Song, X. 2023 a . Spatio-temporal adaptive embedding makes vanilla transformer sota for traffic forecasting. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, 4125--4129

    2023

  21. [29]

    X.; and Dustdar, S

    Liu, S.; Yu, H.; Liao, C.; Li, J.; Lin, W.; Liu, A. X.; and Dustdar, S. 2021. Pyraformer: Low-complexity pyramidal attention for long-range time series modeling and forecasting. International conference on learning representations

    2021

  22. [30]

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

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Liu, Y.; Wu, H.; Wang, J.; and Long, M. 2022. Non-stationary Transformers: Rethinking the Stationarity in Time Series Forecasting. NeurIPS

    2022

  24. [32]

    Liu, Z.; Cheng, M.; Li, Z.; Huang, Z.; Liu, Q.; Xie, Y.; and Chen, E. 2024. Adaptive normalization for non-stationary time series forecasting: A temporal slice perspective. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  25. [33]

    Loshchilov, I.; and Hutter, F. 2016. Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    P.; Medeiros, M

    Masini, R. P.; Medeiros, M. C.; and Mendes, E. F. 2023. Machine learning advances for time series forecasting. Journal of economic surveys, 37(1): 76--111

    2023

  27. [35]

    Nelson, B. K. 1998. Time series analysis using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models. Academic emergency medicine, 5(7): 739--744

    1998

  28. [36]

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

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

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Niu, S.; Wu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, S.; Zhao, P.; and Tan, M. 2022. Efficient Test-Time Model Adaptation without Forgetting. In Chaudhuri, K.; Jegelka, S.; Song, L.; Szepesvari, C.; Niu, G.; and Sabato, S., eds., Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Mac...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Niu, S.; Wu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wen, Z.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, P.; and Tan, M. 2023. Towards Stable Test-time Adaptation in Dynamic Wild World. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  31. [39]

    Z.; Barrow, D

    Petropoulos, F.; Apiletti, D.; Assimakopoulos, V.; Babai, M. Z.; Barrow, D. K.; Taieb, S. B.; Bergmeir, C.; Bessa, R. J.; Bijak, J.; Boylan, J. E.; et al. 2022. Forecasting: theory and practice. International Journal of Forecasting, 38(3): 705--871

    2022

  32. [40]

    Pham, Q.; Liu, C.; Sahoo, D.; and Hoi, S. 2023. Learning Fast and Slow for Online Time Series Forecasting. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  33. [41]

    Toner, W.; and Darlow, L. 2024. An Analysis of Linear Time Series Forecasting Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14587

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  35. [43]

    Verma, Y.; Heinonen, M.; and Garg, V. 2024. Clim ODE : Climate and Weather Forecasting with Physics-informed Neural ODE s. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  36. [44]

    Wang, D.; Shelhamer, E.; Liu, S.; Olshausen, B.; and Darrell, T. 2021. Tent: Fully Test-Time Adaptation by Entropy Minimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  37. [45]

    Wang, H.; Peng, J.; Huang, F.; Wang, J.; Chen, J.; and Xiao, Y. 2023. Micn: Multi-scale local and global context modeling for long-term series forecasting. In The eleventh international conference on learning representations

    2023

  38. [46]

    Y.; and ZHOU, J

    Wang, S.; Wu, H.; Shi, X.; Hu, T.; Luo, H.; Ma, L.; Zhang, J. Y.; and ZHOU, J. 2024. TimeMixer: Decomposable Multiscale Mixing for Time Series Forecasting. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  39. [47]

    Wen, Q.; Chen, W.; Sun, L.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, L.; Jin, R.; Tan, T.; et al. 2024. Onenet: Enhancing time series forecasting models under concept drift by online ensembling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  40. [48]

    Wen, Q.; Zhou, T.; Zhang, C.; Chen, W.; Ma, Z.; Yan, J.; and Sun, L. 2022. Transformers in time series: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07125

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Wu, H.; Hu, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, H.; Wang, J.; and Long, M. 2023. TimesNet: Temporal 2D-Variation Modeling for General Time Series Analysis. ICLR

    2023

  42. [50]

    Wu, H.; Wu, J.; Xu, J.; Wang, J.; and Long, M. 2022. Flowformer: Linearizing transformers with conservation flows. ICML

    2022

  43. [51]

    Wu, H.; Xu, J.; Wang, J.; and Long, M. 2021. Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 22419--22430

    2021

  44. [52]

    Xu, Z.; Zeng, A.; and Xu, Q. 2024. FITS : Modeling Time Series with \ 10k\ Parameters. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  45. [53]

    Yi, K.; Zhang, Q.; Fan, W.; Wang, S.; Wang, P.; He, H.; An, N.; Lian, D.; Cao, L.; and Niu, Z. 2024. Frequency-domain MLPs are more effective learners in time series forecasting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  46. [54]

    Zeng, A.; Chen, M.; Zhang, L.; and Xu, Q. 2023. Are transformers effective for time series forecasting? In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 37(9), 11121--11128

    2023

  47. [55]

    Zhang, Y.; and Yan, J. 2022. Crossformer: Transformer utilizing cross-dimension dependency for multivariate time series forecasting. In The eleventh international conference on learning representations

    2022

  48. [56]

    Zhou, H.; Zhang, S.; Peng, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, J.; Xiong, H.; and Zhang, W. 2021. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35(12), 11106--11115

    2021

  49. [57]

    Zhou, T.; Ma, Z.; Wen, Q.; Wang, X.; Sun, L.; and Jin, R. 2022. Fedformer: Frequency enhanced decomposed transformer for long-term series forecasting. In International conference on machine learning, 27268--27286. PMLR

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.