Accounting Graph Transformer for Short-History Multi-KPI Forecasting in Small Businesses

Shrutendra Harsola; Vignesh Subrahmaniam

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Accounting Graph Transformer for Short-History Multi-KPI Forecasting in Small Businesses

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Routing a transformer's attention through a fixed graph of accounting relations yields more accurate 12-month forecasts on all 13 small-business KPIs than the strongest generic baselines, measured on unseen companies.

desk verdict A careful empirical evaluation of an accounting-graph transformer for multi-KPI forecasting, with a solid primary benchmark but an over-claimed later-origin transfer result that is not truly out-of-time. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07037 v1 pith:6OXRULZ3 submitted 2026-08-07 cs.LG cs.AI

Shrutendra Harsola , Vignesh Subrahmaniam This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords financialforecastingaccountingmultivariatetimeseriesgraphattentionsmallbusinessKPIshort-historypaneltransformer

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

Small businesses typically have only 12–24 months of accounting history, yet planning and liquidity decisions need coordinated forecasts across the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow. This paper tries to establish that one global model can produce accurate joint 12-month forecasts of 13 key performance indicators from 71 monthly ledger series, without fitting anything per company. The proposed Accounting Graph Transformer routes cross-series information through a fixed graph of accounting relations, then blends the result with each target's last three observed months. On 11,993 forecast origins from 1,060 unseen companies it reports a sample-weighted MAE of $0.6990 \pm 0.0013$, versus $0.7378 \pm 0.0014$ for the strongest baseline, LightGBM, and it wins on every one of the 13 KPIs. A final-architecture ablation credits much of the gain specifically to the accounting topology, which the paper reads as evidence that fixed financial structure is a practical inductive bias for short histories.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the fixed accounting-relation graph: 71 nodes, one per ledger series, and 437 directed edges in five typed relations — self-loops, hierarchy edges connecting parents to ranked children and siblings to siblings, and all-to-all statement edges built from the three accounting identities $v_{\mathrm{CA}}+v_{\mathrm{FA}}+v_{\mathrm{OA}}=v_{\mathrm{L}}+v_{\mathrm{E}}$ (balance sheet), $\text{Net Income}=\text{Revenue}-\text{COGS}-\text{Expense}$ (P&L), and $\Delta\text{Cash}=\text{OCF}+\text{ICF}+\text{FCF}$ (cash flow), plus four operational accrual pairs (revenue–AR, COGS–AP, expense–AP, operating-cash-flow–equity). Typed attention computes, for each destination node, a softmax-weighted combination of neighbor tokens per relation, and a learned destination-specific gate merges the five relation contexts; absent accounts are dropped from the softmax, and the company's induced subgraph decides which relations are active. The graph restricts cross-series information exchange to financially plausible neighborhoods, using only 8.7% of the edges of a complete 71-node digraph. A second mechanism, the recency path, projects the last three observed values of the target KPI and fuses them with the pooled KPI context through a learned sigmoid gate, preserving local dynamics that a joint encoder might dilute. Together they let a relative-scale encoder share a fixed interaction pattern across companies with heterogeneous charts of accounts while still mapping back to dollar forecasts.

What would settle it

Run AGT against its degree-matched random-graph variant on a fresh company-disjoint ledger panel under the same masking and scoring pipeline: the paper reports a paired MAE gap of 0.0063 (95% CI [0.0039, 0.0088]) favoring the accounting topology, so a replication in which that gap vanishes or reverses would falsify the claim that the accounting structure itself carries the gain. A more direct check is to test a deliberately mislabeled graph whose edges contradict the statement identities; if accuracy does not drop, the topology is not doing the work attributed to it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fixed accounting-relation graph, used as the attention structure inside a compact transformer, makes joint 12-month KPI forecasting from sparse small-business ledgers more accurate than strong generic alternatives. AGT represents each of 71 ledger series as a masked token, runs four relational-attention blocks over 437 directed edges that encode statement identities, parent–child account structure, and accrual links, pools a KPI-specific context from the resulting tokens, and fuses it with a gated three-month recency signal from the target KPI itself. Across 11,993 forecast origins from 1,060 unseen companies, AGT achieves sample-weighted KPI-macro MAE $0.6990 \pm 0.0013$ over three seeds, compared with $0.7378 \pm 0.0014$ for LightGBM, and the paired seed-42 difference against LightGBM is $0.0395$ with 95% CI $[0.0350,0.0439]$. AGT is best on all 13 KPIs against LightGBM, TimeMixer, and SOFTS in the matched comparison, and a single 5.3-million-parameter checkpoint produces all 156 KPI–horizon forecasts in one forward pass. On a later-origin cohort of 7,094 additional unseen companies the same frozen checkpoint keeps the lead, with 0.7548 MAE versus 0.7694 for SOFTS.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fixed 71-node, 437-edge accounting graph faithfully represents the real dependencies among these ledger series, so that routing attention through it is a genuine inductive bias rather than an arbitrary constraint; if that edge set is not aligned with the true cross-series structure, the paper's central interpretation fails even if the point estimate holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

One frozen 5.3M-parameter checkpoint can generate all 156 aligned KPI–horizon forecasts for a new small business in a single pass, with no per-company retraining or adaptation.
The fixed accounting graph substitutes for the long histories these panels lack, since cross-series dependencies are supplied by the statement identities rather than estimated from 12–24 observed months.
The specific accounting topology matters: a degree-matched random graph degrades MAE by 0.0063 and removing graph attention degrades it by 0.0141, so relational processing alone is not what carries the gain.
Because AGT leads on all 13 KPIs in the matched comparison, the joint output can support KPI-specific review thresholds rather than one global tolerance across forecasts.
The later-origin cohort result indicates the advantage extends to a distinct population of companies and a later time window, supporting a single panel-level forecasting layer without firm-level fitting.

Reading between the lines

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

An untested corollary of the design is that any domain with a defensible exogenous dependency graph — supply chains, energy grids, clinical measurements — could use the same typed-relation attention to forecast short-history panels; the requirement is a trusted topology, not company-specific data volume.
The paper evaluates predictive error, not whether the 156 dollar-valued forecasts satisfy the accounting identities after inversion; a reconciliation or projection step could enforce exact balance-sheet balance, and whether that improves downstream planning is left open.
A natural stress test the paper does not run is regime shift: since observed histories are at most 24 months, the recency gate presumably carries the burden of sudden level changes, and its behavior under a rapid revenue collapse or inflation shock is unexamined.
The ranked-child slot schema suggests a testable extension: feeding the model child-rank information as a covariate rather than a learned embedding could reveal whether the accuracy gain comes from account-composition tracking or from statement-level context.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Take it as an applied forecasting paper with a solid primary benchmark and an over-claimed temporal generalization result. The main contribution is the packaging: a fixed 71-node accounting graph over ledger series, ranked child slots to handle heterogeneous charts of accounts, KPI-specific masked pooling, and a gated recency path. The evaluation is genuinely careful: company-disjoint cohorts, three seeds for the four leading methods, paired company-clustered bootstrap intervals, and an ablation against a degree-matched random graph. Those are real strengths. The 5% improvement over LightGBM and 7% over TimeMixer/SOFTS looks consistent across seeds, and the ablations suggest the graph and recency path each earn their keep. The random-graph control is a nice internal falsification.

The soft spot is the later-origin cohort. As the stress-test notes, training labels for the primary origins extend through Dec 2025, and the later-origin horizons from Jan–May 2025 origins lie inside that same calendar span. So the later-origin result is a company-population transfer check, not a clean out-of-time test. The paper's abstract and conclusion frame it as temporal transfer, which is overstated. That needs a rewrite or a genuinely later origin set. The primary company-disjoint benchmark is unaffected, so this is not fatal. Minor issues: per-KPI 'best on all 13' rows are single-seed point estimates, the later-origin cohort has no uncertainty intervals, and the proprietary data/code are absent. Those are addressable.

Bottom line: this deserves serious refereeing. The main comparison is believable and the domain-specific design is interesting. The reviewer should push on the transfer claim and ask for per-KPI uncertainty, but the core result can stand after revision. I'd cite it if I worked on financial forecasting.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Accounting Graph Transformer (AGT), a global multivariate forecaster that produces joint 12-month forecasts of 13 financial KPIs from 71 monthly ledger series of small businesses. The model encodes masked series tokens, applies four relational-attention blocks over a fixed 71-node, 437-edge accounting graph, pools target-specific context, and fuses it with a gated three-month recency path. On a company-disjoint panel with 11,993 forecast origins from 1,060 unseen test companies, AGT is reported to achieve sample-weighted KPI-macro MAE 0.6990 ± 0.0013 over three seeds, compared with 0.7378 ± 0.0014 for LightGBM, and a paired company-clustered bootstrap difference of 0.0395 with 95% CI [0.0350, 0.0439] at seed 42. The paper also reports per-KPI results, final-architecture ablations, company-balanced estimates, and a later-origin cohort of 7,094 unseen companies.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides credible evidence that a fixed accounting-relation graph is a useful inductive bias for short-history, multi-KPI financial forecasting, and that a single 5.3M-parameter model can produce 156 aligned forecasts without company-specific fitting. The evaluation has notable strengths: a company-disjoint split before origin construction, three independent seeds for the four leading trainable methods, paired company-clustered bootstrap confidence intervals, a common preprocessing and scoring pipeline, and a degree-matched random-graph ablation. These practices make the headline comparison substantially more reliable than a typical single-split point-estimate benchmark. The main weaknesses concern the later-origin cohort, which is not a clean out-of-time test, and the absence of uncertainty quantification for the per-KPI 'best on all 13' claim.

major comments (3)

[§3.4, §6.5] The later-origin cohort is not a clean out-of-time test. Section 3.4 states that all primary cohorts use origins from December 2023 through December 2024 with fully observed 12-month horizons, so training labels extend through December 2025. Section 6.5 samples one origin from January–May 2025 for each later-origin company: for a January 2025 origin the first 11 forecast horizons fall inside the training-label period, and for a May 2025 origin the first 7 horizons do as well. The frozen checkpoint could therefore have absorbed common calendar effects from 2025, and the abstract's statement that AGT 'remains first on a later-origin cohort' overstates temporal generalization. Please either evaluate origins strictly after all training-label months or explicitly reframe this cohort as a company-population transfer check rather than a temporal-transfer check.
[§6.3, Table 10] The claim that AGT is 'best on all 13 KPIs' rests on single seed-42 point estimates without uncertainty intervals. Several per-KPI margins are small, e.g., Revenue 0.5256 for AGT versus 0.5295 for SOFTS, and the aggregate paired CIs do not directly bound these per-KPI differences. Please report per-KPI company-clustered confidence intervals or paired tests, or adjust the claim to say that AGT is best on all 13 KPIs in the seed-42 point estimates.
[§5.2, Table 12] The random-graph ablation description is ambiguous about degree matching. The text says non-self-loop destinations are permuted while sources remain fixed, preserving source out-degree and destination in-degree, but permuting destinations arbitrarily does not generally preserve destination in-degree. If the permutation is constrained within groups of equal in-degree, that constraint should be stated explicitly; otherwise the random control may not be degree-matched, and the 0.0063 degradation cannot be cleanly attributed to the accounting topology alone.

minor comments (4)

[§3.4] The phrase 'same 13 monthly forecast origins' would be clearer as 'the same 13 calendar months as forecast origins' to avoid implying 13 origins per company.
[§6.5, Table 13] The later-origin cohort is evaluated for only one seed and without confidence intervals; even after the reframing suggested in the major comment, a single point estimate should be labeled as such.
[Figure 2, Table 3] The caption of Figure 2 should clarify that the illustrative statement relations correspond to the P&L, balance-sheet, and cash-flow/accrual rows of Table 3; the current label 'solid box' versus 'dashed' is easy to misread against the formal directions in Table 3.
[Eq. (8)] The notation h_i^(0) is introduced without an explicit definition of the superscript; please state that superscript (0) denotes the initial token before the relational blocks.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline comparison is against external baselines under a company-disjoint split, and the accounting-graph contribution is internally falsified by degree-matched random and no-graph ablations; the later-origin overlap is a temporal-split validity concern, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The central forecast claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction. AGT is trained on a company-disjoint training cohort and evaluated on 1,060 unseen companies against external baselines (LightGBM, SOFTS, TimeMixer, foundation models) under a common target-conversion and scoring pipeline; no baseline value or validation error is used as a target definition. The accounting-relation graph is fixed a priori from Eqs. (4)-(6) and the listed accrual pairs, and its contribution is tested by ablations that remove graph attention or replace the graph with a degree-matched random topology. Those ablations provide internal falsification: if the graph encoded no useful structure, the random-graph and no-graph variants would not degrade. The recency path uses only observed past KPI values, not future targets, and the mean-relative target in Eq. (1) is an invertible normalization rather than a fitted quantity. No load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation chain, an imported uniqueness theorem, or a renamed known result. One flagged validity issue is not circularity: Section 3.4 states that all primary cohorts use origins from December 2023 through December 2024 with fully observed 12-month horizons, so training labels extend through December 2025, while Section 6.5 evaluates January-May 2025 origins whose horizons fall inside that training-label window. This undermines the temporal-transfer interpretation of the later-origin cohort, but it is a data-split and generalization-claim problem, not a definitional equivalence between the prediction and the fitted inputs. The primary company-disjoint benchmark and the architecture ablations remain self-contained against external baselines, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper is an empirical ML study, so its central comparison rests on data-derived normalization, validation-selected hyperparameters, and domain priors. The free parameters listed are the nonstandard calibration choices that define the headline MAE; the axioms are the modeling and measurement assumptions the evaluation depends on; the invented entities are representational constructs with no external falsifiable handle. No new physical entity or external theory is introduced.

free parameters (4)

Per-KPI target clipping percentiles (ℓ_k, u_k) = 2.5th and 97.5th training percentiles, values not reported
Used in Eq. (2) to clip targets and forecasts before MAE; fit on the training split, so the headline metric depends on these thresholds.
Per-origin trailing normalization statistics (μ_o,k and scale) = signed mean and mean-absolute-activity scale, company-specific
Eqs. (1) and (7) convert dollar values to mean-relative targets and back; these statistics are computed from each origin's observed history and affect the relative error scale.
Architecture hyperparameters (width 256, 4 heads, 4 blocks, FFN 512, dropout 0.1) = selected on validation from {256,512} width, {3e-4,1e-4,1e-3} learning rate, and related ranges
Validation-selected rather than test-fitted, but the central result is conditional on this capacity and regularization choice.
Huber threshold and recency window = δ=1, window=3 months
Hand-chosen constants in the loss Eq. (13) and recency path Eq. (12); reasonable but not derived from first principles.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Accounting identities in Eqs. (4)-(6) (balance sheet, P&L, cash flow) describe the stored ledger aggregates.
AGT uses these identities only to define graph neighborhoods, so if the aggregates do not obey them the graph is mis-specified; no reconciliation or consistency check is reported.
domain assumption The fixed 71-node, 437-edge accounting graph is a valid shared inductive bias across heterogeneous small businesses.
Central to the claimed value of 'accounting structure'; the random-graph ablation supports it, but it remains a modeling prior rather than a proven fact.
domain assumption Mean-relative targets with KPI-specific clipping give a fair cross-company comparison.
Eqs. (1)-(2) define the headline metric; if this scaling obscures dollar-scale performance, the ranking may not match business value.
domain assumption Eligibility filter and company-disjoint cohort construction do not systematically advantage AGT.
Section 3.4 requires active trailing revenue and a fully observed horizon, common to all methods; whether this removes hard cases proportionally across methods is not analyzed.
ad hoc to paper Ranking subaccounts by pre-origin absolute activity and fixing slot counts preserves enough information about account composition.
The 5-largest per income parent, 3-largest per balance-sheet parent, and catch-all scheme in Table 1 is hand-designed; an ablation of this choice is not reported.
standard math Standard neural-network machinery (softmax attention, layer norm, residual blocks, Huber loss) behaves as assumed.
Used throughout Section 4; no formal verification is provided.

invented entities (2)

Fixed accounting graph (71 nodes, 437 directed edges, 5 relation types)
purpose: Restricts cross-series attention to accounting-relation neighborhoods.
Hand-constructed from accounting identities and operational links; the random-graph ablation tests its topology internally, but no external data source outside this paper validates the edge set.
Ranked child slot
purpose: Maps heterogeneous subaccounts into fixed parent-rank positions with a catch-all for the long tail.
An internal representation device with no external falsifiable prediction and no dedicated ablation; it is a modeling construct, not an empirically confirmed object.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accounting Graph Transformer for Short-History Multi-KPI Forecasting in Small Businesses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6OXRULZ3

@misc{pith2026260807037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accounting Graph Transformer for Short-History Multi-KPI Forecasting in Small Businesses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6OXRULZ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07037}
}

abstract

Small businesses often have only 12-24 months of accounting history, yet planning and risk workflows require coordinated forecasts across financial statements. We study joint 12-month forecasting of 13 income-statement, balance-sheet, cash-flow, and working-capital key performance indicators (KPIs) from 71 monthly ledger series. We introduce the Accounting Graph Transformer (AGT), which represents each ledger series as a masked token, exchanges information through typed attention on a fixed accounting-relation graph, pools target-specific context, and fuses it with a gated three-month recency path. Across 11,993 forecast origins from 1,060 unseen companies, AGT achieves sample-weighted KPI-macro mean absolute error (MAE) $0.6990 \pm 0.0013$ over three independent seeds, compared with $0.7378 \pm 0.0014$ for the strongest baseline, LightGBM. At the pre-specified seed 42, a paired company-clustered bootstrap gives a LightGBM-minus-AGT difference of 0.0395 with 95% confidence interval (CI) $[0.0350,0.0439]$. AGT is best on all 13 KPIs against LightGBM, TimeMixer, and SOFTS in the matched seed-42 comparison, while final-architecture ablations show that relational attention, accounting topology, and the recency path each improve validation and test accuracy. On 7,094 additional unseen companies with origins sampled from January-May 2025, AGT obtains 0.7548 MAE versus 0.7694 for SOFTS. A single 5.3M-parameter model produces 156 aligned forecasts without company-specific fitting, providing one forecasting layer for integrated planning, liquidity, and working-capital analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07037 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** AGT maps a masked ledger panel to joint KPI forecasts. Sparse relation attention uses a fixed accounting graph, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Illustrative top-level relation types. A solid group de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Y. Nie, N. H. Nguyen, P. Sinthong, and J. Kalagnanam. 2023. A Time Series is Worth 64 Words: Long-term Forecasting with Transformers. InICLR

work page 2023
[2]

Liu et al

Y. Liu et al. 2024. iTransformer: Inverted Transformers Are Effective for Time Series Forecasting. InICLR

work page 2024
[3]

Wang et al

S. Wang et al. 2024. TimeMixer: Decomposable Multiscale Mixing for Time Series Forecasting. InICLR. 7 Harsola and Subrahmaniam Table 10: Per-KPI sample-weighted MAE for the matched seed-42 checkpoints. Bold is best in each row. KPI AGT SOFTS LightGBM TimeMixer Revenue0.52560.5295 0.5300 0.5384 Expense0.45910.4828 0.4773 0.4841 COGS0.64820.7041 0.6689 0.68...

work page arXiv 2024
[4]

Das et al

A. Das et al. 2023. Long-Term Forecasting with TiDE: Time-Series Dense Encoder. TMLR

work page 2023
[5]

A. Zeng, M. Chen, L. Zhang, and Q. Xu. 2023. Are Transformers Effective for Time Series Forecasting? InAAAI

work page 2023
[6]

Han, X.-Y

L. Han, X.-Y. Chen, H.-J. Ye, and D.-C. Zhan. 2024. SOFTS: Efficient Multivariate Time Series Forecasting with Series-Core Fusion. InNeurIPS

work page 2024
[7]

A. F. Ansari et al. 2025. Chronos-2: From Univariate to Universal Forecasting. arXiv:2510.15821

arXiv 2025
[8]

A. Das, W. Kong, R. Sen, and Y. Zhou. 2024. A Decoder-only Foundation Model for Time-series Forecasting. InICML

work page 2024

Show all 23 references

[9]

2025.TimesFM 2.5 200M PyTorch Checkpoint

Google Research. 2025.TimesFM 2.5 200M PyTorch Checkpoint. Model card. https: //huggingface.co/google/timesfm-2.5-200m-pytorch

2025
[10]

Liu et al

C. Liu et al. 2025. Moirai 2.0: When Less Is More for Time Series Forecasting. arXiv:2511.11698

2025
[11]

Wu et al

Z. Wu et al. 2020. Connecting the Dots: Multivariate Time Series Forecasting with Graph Neural Networks. InKDD

2020
[12]

Shang, J

C. Shang, J. Chen, and J. Bi. 2021. Discrete Graph Structure Learning for Fore- casting Multiple Time Series. InICLR

2021
[13]

Bai et al

L. Bai et al. 2020. Adaptive Graph Convolutional Recurrent Network for Traffic Forecasting. InNeurIPS

2020
[14]

Cao et al

D. Cao et al. 2020. Spectral Temporal Graph Neural Network for Multivariate Time-Series Forecasting. InNeurIPS

2020
[15]

Y. Yuan, X. Luo, Q. Peng, and W. Zhao. 2026. GraFT: Infusing Pre-trained Trans- formers with Relational Structure for Time Series Forecasting. InAAAI

2026
[16]

Qiao and K

M. Qiao and K. Huang. 2018. Hierarchical Accounting Variables Forecasting by Deep Learning Methods. InICIS

2018
[17]

S. L. Wickramasuriya, G. Athanasopoulos, and R. J. Hyndman. 2019. Optimal Forecast Reconciliation for Hierarchical and Grouped Time Series Through Trace Minimization.JASA114(526), 804–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2018. 1448825

2019
[18]

Ben Taieb, J

S. Ben Taieb, J. Taylor, and R. Hyndman. 2017. Coherent Probabilistic Forecasts for Hierarchical Time Series. InICML

2017
[19]

Montero-Manso and R

P. Montero-Manso and R. J. Hyndman. 2021. Principles and Algorithms for Forecasting Groups of Time Series: Locality and Globality.International Journal of Forecasting37, 4, 1632–1653

2021
[20]

2023.StatsForecast 1.6.0

Nixtla. 2023.StatsForecast 1.6.0. Python package. https://pypi.org/project/ statsforecast/1.6.0/

2023
[21]

Ke et al

G. Ke et al. 2017. LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree. InNeurIPS

2017
[22]

T. Kim, J. Kim, Y. Tae, C. Park, J.-H. Choi, and J. Choo. 2022. Reversible Instance Normalization for Accurate Time-Series Forecasting against Distribution Shift. InICLR

2022
[23]

Loshchilov and F

I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. In ICLR. 8

2019

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Y. Nie, N. H. Nguyen, P. Sinthong, and J. Kalagnanam. 2023. A Time Series is Worth 64 Words: Long-term Forecasting with Transformers. InICLR

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Liu et al

Y. Liu et al. 2024. iTransformer: Inverted Transformers Are Effective for Time Series Forecasting. InICLR

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Wang et al

S. Wang et al. 2024. TimeMixer: Decomposable Multiscale Mixing for Time Series Forecasting. InICLR. 7 Harsola and Subrahmaniam Table 10: Per-KPI sample-weighted MAE for the matched seed-42 checkpoints. Bold is best in each row. KPI AGT SOFTS LightGBM TimeMixer Revenue0.52560.5295 0.5300 0.5384 Expense0.45910.4828 0.4773 0.4841 COGS0.64820.7041 0.6689 0.68...

work page arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Das et al

A. Das et al. 2023. Long-Term Forecasting with TiDE: Time-Series Dense Encoder. TMLR

work page 2023

[5] [5]

A. Zeng, M. Chen, L. Zhang, and Q. Xu. 2023. Are Transformers Effective for Time Series Forecasting? InAAAI

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Han, X.-Y

L. Han, X.-Y. Chen, H.-J. Ye, and D.-C. Zhan. 2024. SOFTS: Efficient Multivariate Time Series Forecasting with Series-Core Fusion. InNeurIPS

work page 2024

[7] [7]

A. F. Ansari et al. 2025. Chronos-2: From Univariate to Universal Forecasting. arXiv:2510.15821

arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

A. Das, W. Kong, R. Sen, and Y. Zhou. 2024. A Decoder-only Foundation Model for Time-series Forecasting. InICML

work page 2024