arxiv: 2604.22077 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Recognition: unknown

Empirical Assessment of Time-Series Foundation Models For Power System Forecasting Applications

Muhy Eddin Za'ter , Bri-Mathias Hodge

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY

keywords time series forecastingfoundation modelspower systemsrenewable energy forecastingload forecastingsolar forecastingwind forecastingERCOT

0 comments

The pith

A systematic benchmark of time-series foundation models on ERCOT grid data shows when they improve solar, wind, and load forecasts over traditional methods.

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

The paper conducts an empirical comparison of state-of-the-art time-series foundation models, transformer architectures, and deep learning baselines for forecasting solar generation, wind generation, and electric load. It evaluates performance across eight operational capabilities using high-resolution data from the Texas ERCOT grid. A sympathetic reader would care because accurate forecasts directly affect the reliability and cost of operating power systems with rising shares of variable renewables. The assessment produces concrete guidance on scenarios where pre-trained models reduce data needs or improve accuracy versus cases where specialized baselines remain preferable.

Core claim

This work establishes an empirical foundation for deciding when to deploy time-series foundation models in power system forecasting by benchmarking models including TimesFM, Chronos Bolt, MoiraiL, MOMENT, Tiny Time Mixer, Temporal Fusion Transformer, PatchTST, TimeXer, LSTM, and CNN on the ARPAE PERFORM dataset for ERCOT, measuring zero-shot performance, fine-tuning efficiency, multivariate handling, horizon sensitivity, generalization to unseen sites, probabilistic outputs, and context window effects.

What carries the argument

The eight core capabilities assessed on the high-resolution ARPAE PERFORM dataset for the ERCOT grid, which together determine the practical conditions under which foundation models deliver advantages in renewable and load forecasting.

Load-bearing premise

The ERCOT grid dataset together with the chosen models and eight capabilities are representative enough to produce guidance that applies to other power systems and forecasting contexts.

What would settle it

Repeating the full evaluation on data from a different grid region and finding that the relative performance rankings between foundation models and baselines reverse across most of the eight capabilities would undermine the generalizability of the resulting guidance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22077 by Bri-Mathias Hodge, Muhy Eddin Za'ter.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Illustration of Forecasting Attributes : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 18 of 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Geographical distribution of the seen (training) and unseen (testing) locations within the ERCOT system. A diagonal geographic boundary was established to test spatial generalization. Sites in the southwestern region (filled markers) were used for training, while approximately 45% of utility-scale sites in the northeastern region (unfilled markers) were strictly withheld to evaluate the models’ zero-shot f… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Reliability diagram for day-ahead probabilistic forecasts. The foundation and transformer models tightly track the ideal calibration line, while the deep learning model show overconfidence (S-curve) and poor calibration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Performance heatmap : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 20 of 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Radar chart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: 3 days solar : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 21 of 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Accurate forecasting of electric load and renewable generation is essential for reliable and cost effective power system operations. Recent advances in transformer based and foundation machine learning models, driven by large scale pretraining, increased available data and computation, in addition to architectural innovations, have shown promise in time series forecasting across multiple domains. However, their application to power system forecasting tasks remains largely underexplored. This work presents a comprehensive, empirical benchmark of state of the art time series foundation models, transformer architectures, and deep learning baselines for solar, wind, and load forecasting using the high resolution ARPAE PERFORM dataset for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) grid. Eight core capabilities are assessed, including zero shot performance, fine tuning efficiency, multivariate input and output handling, horizon sensitivity, generalization to unseen sites, probabilistic forecasting, and context window effects. Models evaluated include TimesFM, Chronos Bolt, MoiraiL, MOMENT, Tiny Time Mixer, Temporal Fusion Transformer, PatchTST, TimeXer, LSTM, and CNN. The manuscript aims to provide clear guidance on when foundation models can provide enhanced renewable and load forecasting capabilities and when other approaches remain the more practical choice for power system operations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Paper describes a planned benchmark for foundation models on power system data but delivers no results, metrics, or analysis.

read the letter

The main thing here is that the manuscript lays out a study design for testing time-series foundation models on ERCOT load, wind, and solar data but stops before running the experiments or showing any outcomes. It names models like TimesFM, Chronos Bolt, MoiraiL, and MOMENT, plus baselines, and defines eight capabilities such as zero-shot use, fine-tuning speed, multivariate handling, and generalization to new sites. That part is straightforward and organizes the questions that matter for grid operations.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript outlines a planned empirical benchmark of time-series foundation models (TimesFM, Chronos Bolt, MoiraiL, MOMENT, Tiny Time Mixer), transformer architectures (Temporal Fusion Transformer, PatchTST, TimeXer), and deep learning baselines (LSTM, CNN) for solar, wind, and load forecasting. It uses the high-resolution ARPAE PERFORM dataset for the ERCOT grid and defines eight capabilities for assessment: zero-shot performance, fine-tuning efficiency, multivariate input/output handling, horizon sensitivity, generalization to unseen sites, probabilistic forecasting, and context window effects. The stated goal is to deliver guidance on when foundation models outperform alternatives in power system operations. However, the text supplies only the study design, dataset description, model list, and capability definitions, with no executed results, performance metrics, tables, error analysis, or conclusions.

Significance. If the benchmark had been executed and the outcomes reported with proper metrics and analysis, the work could address an underexplored application area and offer practical guidance for power system forecasting. The choice of a real-world high-resolution grid dataset and a broad set of capabilities has the potential to yield representative insights. As submitted, however, the absence of any benchmark results means the manuscript does not realize this significance or support its central claims.

major comments (2)

Abstract: The opening claim that 'this work presents a comprehensive, empirical benchmark' and 'aims to provide clear guidance' is not supported, as the manuscript contains only the experimental design and model/dataset descriptions with no performance tables, zero-shot or fine-tuning results, horizon sensitivity analysis, generalization metrics, or conclusions from the benchmark.
Introduction (and overall structure): The central assertion that the study will 'provide clear guidance on when foundation models can provide enhanced renewable and load forecasting capabilities and when other approaches remain the more practical choice' cannot be evaluated or substantiated because no benchmark was executed or reported; the required condition for the claim—the delivery of empirical outcomes—is absent.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review. The referee correctly observes that the submitted manuscript presents the experimental design, models, dataset, and capability definitions but does not include executed benchmark results, performance metrics, tables, or conclusions. We acknowledge this as a limitation of the current version and will revise the manuscript accordingly to incorporate the full empirical outcomes.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: The opening claim that 'this work presents a comprehensive, empirical benchmark' and 'aims to provide clear guidance' is not supported, as the manuscript contains only the experimental design and model/dataset descriptions with no performance tables, zero-shot or fine-tuning results, horizon sensitivity analysis, generalization metrics, or conclusions from the benchmark.

Authors: We agree that the abstract overstates the delivered content. The submitted manuscript indeed contains only the study design. In the revised version we will update the abstract to accurately describe the experimental setup while adding the benchmark results, tables, error analyses, and conclusions for all eight capabilities to substantiate the claims of a comprehensive empirical assessment. revision: yes
Referee: Introduction (and overall structure): The central assertion that the study will 'provide clear guidance on when foundation models can provide enhanced renewable and load forecasting capabilities and when other approaches remain the more practical choice' cannot be evaluated or substantiated because no benchmark was executed or reported; the required condition for the claim—the delivery of empirical outcomes—is absent.

Authors: We concur that the introduction's claims cannot be substantiated without the reported outcomes. We will revise the introduction to align with the manuscript content and ensure the revised version includes the complete set of results across zero-shot performance, fine-tuning efficiency, multivariate handling, horizon sensitivity, generalization, probabilistic forecasting, and context window effects, enabling evaluation of the guidance on model selection for power system operations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical benchmark study

full rationale

The manuscript is a purely empirical comparison of time-series foundation models, transformers, and baselines on the ARPAE PERFORM ERCOT dataset. It defines eight capabilities to assess (zero-shot performance, fine-tuning efficiency, etc.) and lists models but presents no mathematical derivations, equations, first-principles predictions, or fitted parameters that are later renamed as results. No self-citations are used to justify uniqueness theorems or ansatzes, and the central claim reduces only to the execution of a benchmark rather than any self-referential definition or construction. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing steps that collapse to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representativeness of the ERCOT dataset and the fairness of model comparisons across the listed capabilities, with no free parameters, new entities, or mathematical axioms introduced beyond standard domain assumptions about data quality.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The high-resolution ARPAE PERFORM dataset for ERCOT accurately captures real-world conditions for solar, wind, and load forecasting.
All evaluations and guidance depend on this dataset being representative.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5516 in / 1322 out tokens · 32681 ms · 2026-05-09T20:30:23.805553+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Chronos: Learning the Language of Time Series

Chronos: Learning the language of time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07815 . Aslam,S.,Herodotou,H.,Mohsin,S.M.,Javaid,N.,Ashraf,N.,Aslam,S.,2021. Asurveyondeeplearningmethodsforpowerloadandrenewable energy forecasting in smart microgrids. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144, 110992. Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan,J.D., Dh...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[2]

Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 1877–1901

Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 1877–1901. Bryce, R., Buster, G., Doubleday, K., Feng, C., Ring-Jarvi, R., Rossol, M., Zhang, F., Hodge, B.M.,

1901
[3]

Technical Report

Solar PV, wind generation, and load forecastingdatasetforERCOT2018:Performance-basedenergyresourcefeedback,optimization,andriskmanagement(PERFORM). Technical Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States). Bryce,R.,Feng,C.,Sergi,B.,Ring-Jarvi,R.,Zhang,W.,Hodge,B.M.,2024. Solar,wind,andloadforecastingdatasetforMISO,NYISO,an...

2024
[4]

Energy Economics 130, 107304

Impact of short-term wind forecast accuracy on the performance of decarbonising wholesale electricity markets. Energy Economics 130, 107304. Depoortere,J.,Driesen,J.,Suykens,J.,Kazmi,H.S.,2025. Solnet:Open-sourcedeeplearningmodelsforphotovoltaicpowerforecastingacrossthe globe. International Journal of Forecasting . Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K.,

2025
[5]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, 74147–74181

Tiny time mixers (ttms): Fast pre-trained models for enhanced zero/few-shot forecasting of multivariate time series. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, 74147–74181. ERCOT, . Load Profiling — ercot.com.https://www.ercot.com/mktinfo/loadprofile. [Accessed 23-03-2026]. Goswami, M., Szafer, K., Choudhry, A., Cai, Y., Li, S., Dubrawski, A.,

2026
[6]

Moment: A family of open time-series foundation models

Moment: A family of open time-series foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03885 . Islam,S.,Elmekki,H.,Elsebai,A.,Bentahar,J.,Drawel,N.,Rjoub,G.,Pedrycz,W.,2024. Acomprehensivesurveyonapplicationsoftransformers for deep learning tasks. Expert Systems with Applications 241, 122666. Kazemi, S.M., Goel, R., Eghbali, S., Ramanan, J., Sahota, J., Thakur...

work page arXiv 2024
[7]

Time2Vec: Learning a Vector Representation of Time

Time2vec: Learning a vector representation of time. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.05321 . Kim, D., Park, J., Lee, J., Kim, H.,

work page Pith review arXiv 1907
[8]

Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization

Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 . Kottapalli,S.R.K.,Hubli,K.,Chandrashekhara,S.,Jain,G.,Hubli,S.,Botla,G.,Doddaiah,R.,2025. Foundationmodelsfortimeseries:Asurvey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04011 . Kuster, C., Rezgui, Y., Mourshed, M.,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[9]

Moirai-MoE: Empowering time series foundation models with sparse mixture of experts, 2024

Moirai-moe: Empowering time series foundation models with sparse mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10469 . Madhusudhanan, K., Jawed, S., Schmidt-Thieme, L.,

work page arXiv
[10]

Hyperparameter tuning mlp’s for probabilistic time series forecasting, in: Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Springer. pp. 264–275. Martinez-Anido,C.B.,Botor,B.,Florita,A.R.,Draxl,C.,Lu,S.,Hamann,H.F.,Hodge,B.M.,2016. Thevalueofday-aheadsolarpowerforecasting improvement. Solar Energy 129, 192–203. MeftahulFerdaus,M.,Dam,T.,Ra...

2016
[11]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09487

Benchmarking time series foundation models for short-term household electricity load forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09487 . Miller, J.A., Aldosari, M., Saeed, F., Barna, N.H., Rana, S., Arpinar, I.B., Liu, N.,

work page arXiv
[12]

A survey of deep learning and foundation models for time series forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13912, 2024

A survey of deep learning and foundation models for time series forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13912 . Myers,D.,Mohawesh,R.,Chellaboina,V.I.,Sathvik,A.L.,Venkatesh,P.,Ho,Y.H.,Henshaw,H.,Alhawawreh,M.,Berdik,D.,Jararweh,Y.,2024. Foundation and large language models: fundamentals, challenges, opportunities, and social impacts. Cluster Computing 27, ...

work page arXiv 2024
[13]

A Time Series is Worth 64 Words: Long-term Forecasting with Transformers

A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14730 . Niu,P.,Zhou,T.,Wang,X.,Sun,L.,Jin,R.,2024. Attentionasrobustrepresentationfortimeseriesforecasting. arXivpreprintarXiv:2402.05370. Paletta, Q., Arbod, G., Lasenby, J.,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[14]

Exploringthelimitsoftransferlearningwith a unified text-to-text transformer

Raffel,C.,Shazeer,N.,Roberts,A.,Lee,K.,Narang,S.,Matena,M.,Zhou,Y.,Li,W.,Liu,P.J.,2020. Exploringthelimitsoftransferlearningwith a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research 21, 1–67. Saravanan, H.K., Dwivedi, S., Praveen, P., Arjunan, P.,

2020
[15]

Compute trends across three eras of machine learning, in: 2022 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), IEEE. pp. 1–8. Shamshirband, S., Rabczuk, T., Chau, K.W.,

2022
[16]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02796

Specialized foundation models struggle to beat supervised baselines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02796 . Ye, J., Zhang, W., Yi, K., Yu, Y., Li, Z., Li, J., Tsung, F.,

work page arXiv
[17]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02358

A survey of time series foundation models: Generalizing time series representation with large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02358 . Yeh, C.C.M., Dai, X., Chen, H., Zheng, Y., Fan, Y., Der, A., Lai, V., Zhuang, Z., Wang, J., Wang, L., et al.,

work page arXiv