Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

ReasonCast: Towards Explainable Time Series Forecasting with Reasoning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ReasonCast trains one LLM to forecast and explain a time series in a single pass.

desk verdict The UxG framing and ReasonTS-Bench are genuinely useful, but the main forecast-accuracy claim is undercut by a missing fine-tuned-no-reasoning control. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01875 v1 pith:474LN6TF submitted 2026-08-03 cs.AI cs.LG

Seunghan Lee , Jun Seo , Jaehoon Lee , Junhyeok Kang , Sangjun Han , Sungdong Yoo , Minjae Kim , Tae Yoon Lim
show 4 more authors
Dongwan Kang Hwanil Choi Soonyoung Lee Wonbin Ahn
This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords timeseriesforecastingexplainableAIlargelanguagemodelsreasoningchainscausalsyntheticbenchmarkpatternprimitivestaskfusion
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

This paper argues that forecasting and explaining a forecast should be one task, not two: a model should emit the reasoning first and the numbers second, in a single autoregressive response. To study this, the paper builds a synthetic benchmark of five fundamental time-series patterns with ground-truth reasoning chains, and a training recipe, ReasonCast, that fine-tunes any LLM to route, reason, and forecast in one pass. On the benchmark, ReasonCast's forecasts are more accurate than both specialized time-series models and plain LLMs, and its extracted reasoning fields are checkable and respond to counterfactual changes in the input. If the recipe transfers beyond synthetic patterns, it offers a practical route to forecasts that come with their own rationale built in, rather than explanations bolted on afterward.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the factorization p(forecast, reasoning | input) = p(reasoning | input) · p(forecast | reasoning, input), realized as a single autoregressive LLM pass: first an input-analysis block, then a reasoning block that states the detected pattern and parameters, then a numeric prediction block. The benchmark supplies verifiable ground-truth reasoning for five primitives (periodicity, trend, temporal dependence, multi-periodicity, structural break) plus no-pattern sets, and four metrics score forecast and reasoning jointly.

What would settle it

Find a real-world time-series window whose embedding falls outside the five-primitive region (or an explicit composition of primitives), run ReasonCast on it, and show the model either routes it to the wrong pattern or forecasts worse than a simple linear extrapolation; that would break the sufficiency premise on which the benchmark's transferability rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that understanding and generation can be fused: a single LLM, fine-tuned with ReasonCast, emits a structured reasoning chain and the numeric forecast conditioned on it in one autoregressive pass, so the explanation causally guides the prediction rather than justifying it post hoc. On ReasonTS-Bench, this fused model beats both task-separated LLMs and specialized TS forecasters in forecast error while scoring high on three reasoning metrics: fidelity (estimated parameters match ground truth), consistency (the forecast obeys the model's own stated rule), and sensitivity (the reasoning tracks a counterfactual change in one generative parameter).

Load-bearing premise

The five primitives are sufficient to cover the structure of real-world time series, so performance and reasoning quality measured on ReasonTS-Bench transfer to real data; the benchmark's own evidence for this is a visual overlap in an embedding plot, not a coverage guarantee.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single LLM can be trained to both forecast and explain in one coherent output, outperforming task-separated models on forecast accuracy.
  • Reasoning-first ordering is essential; swapping the order degrades fidelity and consistency, showing the reasoning grounds the forecast rather than merely accompanying it.
  • Joint training on five primitives beats five single-pattern specialists, so routing between patterns is learned rather than externally selected.
  • The model can flag unfamiliar inputs as no-pattern and extrapolate the recent trend, transferring to held-out out-of-distribution processes better than baselines.
  • Reasoning metrics (fidelity, consistency, sensitivity) can be computed automatically from ground-truth generative parameters and counterfactual pairs, enabling joint evaluation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the five primitives are truly compositional, the same recipe should extend to chains that explain compositions (e.g., trend plus changepoint plus noise), which the paper names as future work but does not evaluate; testing on such compositions is a natural next step.
  • The counterfactual sensitivity metric could be turned into a training signal—encouraging the model to shift exactly the intervened field—rather than only an evaluation probe, potentially tightening causal grounding further.
  • The no-pattern fallback suggests a calibration use: the model's routed pattern confidence could double as an uncertainty estimate for the forecast, letting users know when the forecast is extrapolation rather than pattern-based.
  • Because the benchmark is synthetic, a natural extension is to generate reasoning targets from real datasets via fitted parametric models (e.g., fitted AR or seasonal decompositions) and test whether the same recipe improves explainability on natural series.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a fourth task axis for time-series models, Understanding×Generation (U×G), in which a single model produces both a natural-language reasoning chain and a numeric forecast in one autoregressive pass, following the factorization pθ(o_gen, o_rsn | X) = pθ(o_rsn | X) · pθ(o_gen | o_rsn, X). The authors introduce ReasonTS-Bench, a synthetic benchmark built on five primitives (Sine, Trend, AR(1), Multi-freq, Changepoint), plus Unknown and OOD-novel sets, with closed-form ground-truth reasoning chains and four metrics: Error, Fidelity, Consistency, and Sensitivity. They present ReasonCast, a fine-tuning recipe applied to several LLM backbones, and report that it improves both forecast error and reasoning metrics over few-shot LLM baselines and specialized TS models. Ablations address output order, reasoning-content corruption, explicit vs. implicit routing, joint vs. separate training, and counterfactual sensitivity. A short qualitative application to four real-world datasets is included.

Significance. The benchmark is a useful contribution: it is the first TS benchmark we know of that pairs forecasts with step-verifiable reasoning chains and scores them jointly, and the recipe demonstrates that a single LLM can be trained to emit a structured reasoning chain and a forecast in one coherent output. The controlled synthetic setup allows clean ablations of order, content, routing, and counterfactual behavior, and the paper includes reproducibility-friendly details: code link, dataset sizes, generative parameter ranges, and per-field tolerances. If the central comparison is made fair, the paper would provide a solid foundation for studying explainable TS forecasting. The external-validity claims are weaker: the sufficiency of the five primitives for real-world coverage rests on a t-SNE visualization and a qualitative figure, and the 'causal reasoning' claim is stated more strongly than the counterfactual metric supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Tables 5 and 6; Appendix F.1] The main comparison confounds the reasoning recipe with fine-tuning. The 'w/o ReasonCast' LLM rows in Table 5 are explicitly few-shot (caption: 'The Axis 3 rows give each backbone few-shot examples'), while the 'w/ ReasonCast' rows are fully fine-tuned. Appendix F.1 states that each LLM is evaluated both few-shot and fine-tuned, and it describes a Numeric-only SFT control trained to emit only the PREDICTION block, but no fine-tuned no-reasoning results and no Numeric-only SFT numbers appear in Tables 5 or 6 or elsewhere. The order and content ablations (Tables 7 and 11) compare models that both emit reasoning, so they do not isolate the contribution of reasoning relative to fine-tuning. This is load-bearing for the headline claim that ReasonCast 'outperforms ... LLMs on prediction accuracy.' Please report the missing matched controls.
  2. [Section 4, Appendix B.4, Eq. (7)-(8), Table 8] The claim of 'verifiable, causal reasoning' (Abstract, Conclusion) is stronger than the Sensitivity/Stability metric establishes. Because the ground-truth reasoning fields are equal to the generative parameters by construction, a model that learns to re-estimate parameters from the input will pass Sensitivity and Stability without implementing any distinct causal mechanism; the probe demonstrates input-tracking, not necessarily causal structure. Please either rephrase the claim to 'intervention-tracking' or add an additional test that separates parameter re-estimation from causal grounding, e.g., intervening on the reasoning field while holding the input fixed.
  3. [Section 3.1, Figure 2; Section 6] The sufficiency claim for the five primitives ('These five primitives are sufficient and widely used, forming the basis of TS decomposition') is supported only by a t-SNE plot of four real datasets and a qualitative Figure 6. t-SNE overlap is not a coverage guarantee, and no quantitative measure (e.g., fitting the primitives to real windows and reporting fit error or a coverage statistic) is given. Since the benchmark's transferability to real-world data is part of the paper's motivation, either add a quantitative coverage analysis or soften the claim to describe ReasonTS-Bench as a controlled synthetic testbed. The Conclusion's own limitation paragraph supports the softer reading.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 12] The column header 'w/o ReasonCast / w/ ReasonCast / No-pattern / Implicit / Explicit' is visually ambiguous. Please clarify which columns correspond to the routing variants and which rows are 'no-pattern' fallback.
  2. [Figure 2] Please report the t-SNE settings (perplexity, number of windows, embedding dimension, whether the real windows were normalized) and include a quantitative overlap measure if space permits.
  3. [Table 16] The entry 'Sep: 19.7x' is unclear; presumably 'Separation: 19.7×'. Please spell out or define.
  4. [Appendix F.2] The main-text tables use 200 test samples per pattern while Appendix C reports 1,000; Appendix G notes this discrepancy for one table but it is easy to miss. Please state the sample count in every table caption.
  5. [References] Several references carry 2026 dates and arXiv identifiers, and the manuscript's own arXiv number is 2608.01875. Please verify that these are correct and add access dates if applicable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central coupling claim is supported by independent ablations, and the benchmark's synthetic labeling is by design rather than a derivation.

full rationale

ReasonCast's derivation chain is not circular. Equation (1) is an identity of conditional probability, not a reduction of the claimed result to its inputs. The benchmark's ground-truth reasoning fields are, by construction, the generative parameters that also produce the forecast targets, so Fidelity and Error are correlated; however, the paper does not rely on that correlation as the sole evidence. The order ablation (Table 7), the reasoning-content ablation (Table 11), and the counterfactual probe (Tables 8 and 21) provide independent tests that the reasoning steers the forecast rather than merely accompanying it. The 'sufficiency of five primitives' claim is supported by external citations (Wold 1938; Cleveland et al. 1990) and a t-SNE plot, not by a self-citation. The FinSTaR citation is the authors' own prior work but appears only in related work and is not load-bearing for ReasonCast's claims. The missing Numeric-only SFT control and the few-shot-versus-fine-tuned comparison in Table 5 are experimental confounds that bear on correctness, not circularity, so they do not raise the circularity score. The paper's stated Limitations section honestly notes the synthetic and univariate scope, which is a scope limitation rather than a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim does not depend on any single free parameter fitted to an external target; the hand-chosen tolerances and generative ranges affect metric magnitudes but not the qualitative outcome. The load-bearing axioms are the sufficiency of the five primitives, the informal t-SNE coverage argument, and the interpretation of counterfactual sensitivity as causal reasoning.

free parameters (3)
  • Consistency tolerance tau = 0.1
    Fraction of amplitude used in the tolerance of the Consistency metric (Eq. 6); chosen by hand and affects the Consistency score but not the qualitative conclusions.
  • Per-field tolerances (af, rf) = see Table 18
    Absolute and relative tolerances for the match indicator used in Fidelity, Sensitivity, and Stability; these are hand-chosen and set the difficulty of the reasoning metrics.
  • Generative parameter ranges = e.g., P in [4,50], A in [0.5,5]
    Hand-chosen ranges for the synthetic benchmark; they define the task distribution but are not fitted to any external target.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The five primitives (periodicity, trend, AR(1), multi-periodicity, structural break) are sufficient and widely used as a basis for time series decomposition
    Invoked in Section 3.1 and footnote 1; the benchmark's coverage claim rests on this rather than on a formal theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper Real-world series lie within the primitive region, as suggested by t-SNE overlap in Figure 2
    The t-SNE visualization is an informal argument, not a measure of coverage; this is load-bearing for the transfer claim.
  • ad hoc to paper Counterfactual sensitivity implies causal reasoning
    Section 4 and Table 8 interpret a model's tracking of an intervened parameter as 'causal'; sensitivity to input changes is weaker than causal structure discovery.
  • domain assumption An LLM can recover the generative parameters from tokenized numeric series with sufficient precision
    The whole recipe depends on the fine-tuned LLM being able to estimate parameters like period, amplitude, and changepoint from serialized numbers.
invented entities (1)
  • UxG task axis independent evidence
    purpose: Conceptual framing for task-fused forecasting and self-explanation
    Newly named axis; the benchmark and experiments provide evidence that such joint generation is learnable. It is a task formulation, not a physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ReasonCast: Towards Explainable Time Series Forecasting with Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/474LN6TF

@misc{pith2026260801875,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ReasonCast: Towards Explainable Time Series Forecasting with Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/474LN6TF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01875}
}
read the original abstract

Most time series (TS) models are specialized for a single task, either understanding (i.e., returning text answers about a TS) or generation (i.e., returning a numeric forecast). Only recently have unified models begun to handle the two within a single architecture. Even these models, however, produce the two outputs as task-separated paths and cannot predict a series and explain why that prediction arises within a single coherent response. In this paper, we argue for a task-fused model that jointly produces 1) prediction (generation) and 2) selfexplanation (understanding), thereby integrating 1) numerical TS forecasting and 2) interpretable text reasoning within a single response. To enable the systematic study of this capability, we present both a benchmark and a recipe that jointly address the two tasks. The benchmark, ReasonTS-Bench, identifies five fundamental patterns underlying TS and enables the joint evaluation of both tasks. ReasonCast, our recipe for finetuning any LLM to perform both tasks jointly, yields a model that generates a reasoning chain and a forecast together in a single autoregressive pass. Extensive experiments show that ReasonCast outperforms both LLMs and TS models on prediction accuracy while producing verifiable, causal reasoning. Code is available at: https://github.com/seunghan96/reasoncast.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01875 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Five primitives of ReasonTS-Bench. One sample per pattern. Blue is the input and red is the target, and the ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sufficiency of the five primitives. Real-world datasets lie within the region occupied by the five primitives. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of ground-truth reasoning. [Left] Sample with the trend line, the context and target split, and the next peak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Forecast visualization across the five primitives on the default Qwen2.5-3B backbone, with and without ReasonCast. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: How the counterfactual probe is scored. A paired [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Application to real-world datasets: ETTh1, Solar, Weather, Traffic. The default model is applied without further [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The four metric families, illustrated on a Sine example. Error averages the shaded gap between prediction and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The two out-of-pattern sets. One sample is shown per member of the Unknown (top) and OOD-novel (bottom) sets, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Counterfactual probe, success versus failure. On the left, changing the Sine amplitude shifts the model’s stated detected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The two ReasonCast routing pipelines. A single decoder produces the class-conditional reasoning chain and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Two ways the reasoning loses its grounding. [Top] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Sine. INPUT ANALYSIS: observed_length: 108 detected_period: 6 detected_amplitude: 4.47 detected_phase: 4.0242 detected_slope: 0.0452 detected_intercept: 1.013 last_value: x(107) = 6.8411 current_phase_in_cycle: 0.474 current_state: near_peak REASONING: pattern_type: s…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: AR(1). INPUT ANALYSIS: observed_length: 81 detected_period_1: 7 detected_period_2: 33 detected_amplitude_1: 1.05 detected_amplitude_2: 1.84 detected_phase_1: 0.2691 detected_phase_2: 0.3848 last_value: x(80) = 0.3595 REASONING: pattern_type: two_frequency_superpositio…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Changepoint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A.; Bach, N.; et al

    Abdin, M.; Aneja, J.; Awadalla, H.; Awadallah, A.; Awan, A. A.; Bach, N.; et al. 2024. Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Aksu, T.; Woo, G.; Liu, J.; Liu, X.; Liu, C.; Savarese, S.; Xiong, C.; and Sahoo, D. 2024. GIFT-Eval : A Benchmark for General Time Series Forecasting Model Evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10393

    arXiv 2024

  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. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR)

    2024

  4. [4]

    L.; Proctor, J

    Brunton, S. L.; Proctor, J. L.; and Kutz, J. N. 2016. Discovering Governing Equations from Data by Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15): 3932--3937

    2016

  5. [5]

    Chen, J.; Feng, A.; Zhao, Z.; Garza, J.; Nurbek, G.; Qin, C.; Maatouk, A.; Tassiulas, L.; Gao, Y.; and Ying, R. 2025 a . MTBench : A Multimodal Time Series Benchmark for Temporal Reasoning and Question Answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16858

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    J.; Sun, J.; and Liu, C

    Chen, M.; Shen, L.; Li, Z.; Wang, X. J.; Sun, J.; and Liu, C. 2025 b . VisionTS : Visual Masked Autoencoders Are Free-Lunch Zero-Shot Time Series Forecasters. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2025

  7. [7]

    T.; Xu, M

    Chow, W.; Gardiner, L.; Hallgr \'i msson, H. T.; Xu, M. A.; and Ren, S. Y. 2024. Towards Time Series Reasoning with LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11376

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    B.; Cleveland, W

    Cleveland, R. B.; Cleveland, W. S.; McRae, J. E.; and Terpenning, I. 1990. STL : A Seasonal-Trend Decomposition Procedure Based on Loess. Journal of Official Statistics, 6(1): 3--73

    1990

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Cobbe, K.; et al. 2021. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Das, A.; Kong, W.; Sen, R.; and Zhou, Y. 2024. A Decoder-Only Foundation Model for Time-Series Forecasting. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2024

  3. [11]

    G.; et al

    Gemma Team ; Riviere, M.; Pathak, S.; Sessa, P. G.; et al. 2024. Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    I.; Hyndman, R

    Godahewa, R.; Bergmeir, C.; Webb, G. I.; Hyndman, R. J.; and Montero-Manso, P. 2021. Monash Time Series Forecasting Archive. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) Datasets and Benchmarks Track

    2021

  5. [13]

    Grattafiori, A.; Dubey, A.; Jauhri, A.; Pandey, A.; et al. 2024. The Llama 3 Herd of Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    H.; et al

    Guan, T.; Meng, Z.; Li, D.; Wang, S.; Yang, C.-H. H.; et al. 2026 a . TimeOmni-1 : Incentivizing Complex Reasoning with Time Series in Large Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2026

  7. [15]

    Guan, T.; Pan, S.; Barthelemy, J.; Li, Z.; Cai, Y.; Alippi, C.; Jin, M.; and Pan, S. 2026 b . TimeOmni-VL : Unified Models for Time Series Understanding and Generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2026

  8. [16]

    C.; Ansari, A

    He, Z.; Han, B.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Lin, H.; Zhu, Q.; Fang, H.; Maddix, D. C.; Ansari, A. F.; Chandrayan, A.; Pradhan, A.; Wang, B.; and Reimherr, M. 2026. SenTSR-Bench : Thinking with Injected Knowledge for Time-Series Reasoning. In International Conference on Artificial I...

    2026

  9. [17]

    Hendrycks, D.; et al. 2021. Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving with the MATH Dataset. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) Datasets and Benchmarks Track

    2021

  10. [18]

    J.; Shen, Y.; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; and Chen, W

    Hu, E. J.; Shen, Y.; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; and Chen, W. 2022. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Y.; Shi, X.; Chen, P.-Y.; Liang, Y.; Li, Y.-F.; Pan, S.; and Wen, Q

    Jin, M.; Wang, S.; Ma, L.; Chu, Z.; Zhang, J. Y.; Shi, X.; Chen, P.-Y.; Liang, Y.; Li, Y.-F.; Pan, S.; and Wen, Q. 2024. Time-LLM: Time Series Forecasting by Reprogramming Large Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Kong, Y.; Yang, Y.; Hwang, Y.; Du, W.; Zohren, S.; Wang, Z.; Jin, M.; and Wen, Q. 2025. Time-MQA : Time Series Multi-Task Question Answering with Context Enhancement. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 29736--29753

    2025

  13. [21]

    Y.; Kang, D.; Choi, H.; Lee, S.; and Ahn, W

    Lee, S.; Seo, J.; Lee, J.; Yoo, S.; Kim, M.; Lim, T. Y.; Kang, D.; Choi, H.; Lee, S.; and Ahn, W. 2026. FinSTaR : Towards Financial Reasoning with Time Series Reasoning Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.03460

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lin, J.; Wang, Y.; Wu, J.; Luo, H.; Pei, Z.; and Wang, J. 2026. Thoth : Mid-Training Bridges LLMs to Time Series Understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01042

    2026

  15. [23]

    Liu, Y.; Hu, T.; Zhang, H.; Wu, H.; Wang, S.; Ma, L.; and Long, M. 2024. iTransformer: Inverted Transformers Are Effective for Time Series Forecasting. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2024

  16. [24]

    S.; and Yang, B

    Lu, J.; Chen, P.; Wu, X.; Shu, Y.; Guo, C.; Jensen, C. S.; and Yang, B. 2026. PATRA : Pattern-Aware Alignment and Balanced Reasoning for Time Series Question Answering. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2026

  17. [25]

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

    Nie, Y.; Nguyen, N. H.; Sinthong, P.; and Kalagnanam, J. 2023. A Time Series is Worth 64 Words: Long-term Forecasting with Transformers. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). ArXiv:2211.14730

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Qin, J.; Li, C.; Cui, J.; Wang, L.; Liu, Z.; and Liao, Q. 2025. Bridging Time and Linguistics: LLMs as Time Series Analyzer through Symbolization and Segmentation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2025

  19. [27]

    S.; Sheng, Z.; and Yang, B

    Qiu, X.; Hu, J.; Zhou, L.; Wu, X.; Du, J.; Zhang, B.; Guo, C.; Zhou, A.; Jensen, C. S.; Sheng, Z.; and Yang, B. 2024. TFB : Towards Comprehensive and Fair Benchmarking of Time Series Forecasting Methods. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment

    2024

  20. [28]

    Schmidt, M.; and Lipson, H. 2009. Distilling Free-Form Natural Laws from Experimental Data. Science, 324(5923): 81--85

    2009

  21. [29]

    Shi, X.; Wang, S.; Nie, Y.; Li, D.; Ye, Z.; Wen, Q.; and Jin, M. 2025. Time-MoE : Billion-Scale Time Series Foundation Models with Mixture of Experts. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Suzgun, M.; et al. 2023. Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 13003--13051

    2023

  23. [31]

    Wang, C.; Qi, Q.; Wang, J.; Sun, H.; Zhuang, Z.; Wu, J.; Zhang, L.; and Liao, J. 2025. ChatTime : A Unified Multimodal Time Series Foundation Model Bridging Numerical and Textual Data. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 39(12): 12694--12702

    2025

  24. [32]

    Wang, Y.; Wu, H.; Dong, J.; Liu, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Wang, J.; and Long, M. 2024. TimeXer: Empowering Transformers for Time Series Forecasting with Exogenous Variables. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Wold, H. 1938. A Study in the Analysis of Stationary Time Series. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell

    1938

  26. [34]

    Woo, G.; Liu, C.; Kumar, A.; Xiong, C.; Savarese, S.; and Sahoo, D. 2024. Unified Training of Universal Time Series Forecasting Transformers. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Wu, H.; Hu, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, H.; Wang, J.; and Long, M. 2023. TimesNet: Temporal 2D-Variation Modeling for General Time Series Analysis. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Xie, Z.; Li, Z.; He, X.; Xu, L.; Wen, X.; Zhang, T.; Chen, J.; Shi, R.; and Pei, D. 2025. ChatTS : Aligning Time Series with LLMs via Synthetic Data for Enhanced Understanding and Reasoning. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 18(8): 2385--2398

    2025

  29. [37]

    Yang, A.; Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, B.; Li, C.; Liu, D.; et al. 2024. Qwen2.5 Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    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

    2023

  31. [39]

    Zhang, X.; Gao, T.; Cheng, M.; Pan, B.; Guo, Z.; Liu, Y.; Tao, X.; and Liu, Q. 2025. AlphaCast : A Human Wisdom- LLM Intelligence Co-Reasoning Framework for Interactive Time Series Forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08947

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.