Amortized Predictability-aware Training Framework for Time Series Forecasting and Classification
Authors: Xu Zhang, Peng Wang, Yichen Li, Wei Wang
Organizations: Shanghai Key Laboratory of Data Science, College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada
Time series data are prone to noise in various domains, and training samples may contain low-predictability patterns that deviate from the normal data distribution, leading to training instability or convergence to poor local minima. Therefore, mitigating the adverse effects of low-predictability samples is crucial for time series analysis tasks such as time series forecasting (TSF) and time series classification (TSC). While many deep learning models have achieved promising performance, few consider how to identify and penalize low-predictability samples to improve model performance from the training perspective. To fill this gap, we propose a general Amortized Predictability-aware Training Framework (APTF) for both TSF and TSC. APTF introduces two key designs that enable the model to focus on high-predictability samples while still learning appropriately from low-predictability ones: (i) a Hierarchical Predictability-aware Loss (HPL) that dynamically identifies low-predictability samples and progressively expands their loss penalty as training evolves, and (ii) an amortization model that mitigates predictability estimation errors caused by model bias, further enhancing HPL's effectiveness. The code is available at https://github.com/Meteor-Stars/APTF.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. The proposed general training framework APTF for time series forecasting and classification.
Figure 2. Illustration of different bucketing strategies for computing the predictability-aware loss. (a) A fixed number of buckets is used throughout training, ignoring the predictability evolution issue. (b) The number of buckets decreases as training progresses, addressing predictability evolution but discarding previous bucket partitions. (c) Hierarchical buckets consider both predictability evolution and previous bucket partitioning strategies.
TimeMixer
PatchTST
Autoformer
NSformer
Scaleformer
NLinear
N-HiTS
Informer
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
Fund1
87.914
89.963
86.549
88.811
103.286
110.295
95.112
97.198
100.027
107.31
102.536
106.636
86.856
91.69
102.912
106.952
Fund2
84.356
85.512
85.094
86.472
99.712
107.141
91.516
94.406
96.736
109.01
90.791
93.538
86.13
91.531
91.407
97.193
Fund3
83.659
85.14
84.821
86.593
98.838
107.063
90.364
92.646
95.235
107.405
90.542
93.652
84.719
90.332
90.476
96.589
Table 1. Short-term TSF results of APTF for forecasting 1, 5, 8, and 10 future steps, where the average WMAPE over all horizons is reported. APTF also shows improvements over baselines CATS, TimeXer, and ModernTCN, as shown in Appendix Table 9 .
TimeMixer
PatchTST
Autoformer
NSformer
Scaleformer
NLinear
N-HiTS
Informer
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
ETTh1
0.492
0.517
0.40
0.43
0.492
0.504
0.511
0.523
0.543
0.55
0.453
0.469
0.491
0.516
1.038
1.058
ETTh2
0.395
0.415
0.366
0.37
0.398
0.434
0.407
0.434
0.409
0.441
0.38
0.383
0.546
0.599
1.577
2.357
ETTm1
0.398
0.407
0.357
0.369
0.506
0.556
0.553
0.599
0.506
0.518
0.375
0.377
0.385
0.399
0.675
0.74
ETTm2
0.3
0.304
0.278
0.29
0.351
0.36
0.337
0.356
0.354
0.414
0.286
0.291
0.311
0.334
1.55
2.092
weather
0.264
0.269
0.241
0.244
0.383
0.386
0.307
0.314
0.452
0.534
0.263
0.27
0.257
0.262
0.508
0.595
Table 2. Long-term forecasting results for horizons of 96, 192, 336, and 720, reporting averaged MSE and MAE. Due to space constraints, partial results for each horizon are provided in Appendix 13 . APTF also shows improvements over baselines CATS, TimeXer, and ModernTCN, as shown in Appendix Table 10 and Table 12 .
Methods
Average accuracy
Origin
w/ APTF
Win
Tie
128 UCR datasets
FCNet
79.82 ± 0.011
81.21 ± 0.014
82
22
ResNet
79.93 ± 0.0141
81.04 ± 0.0142
86
25
InceptionTime
85.90 ± 0.008
86.73 ± 0.008
74
34
OSCNN
84.82 ± 0.008
85.37 ± 0.0081
65
40
FormerTime
74.42 ± 0.0157
75.31 ± 0.0152
69
33
Table 3. TSC task. The average classification accuracy over 128 UCR datasets is reported.
Autoformer-Our
w/o Amortize
w/o HPL
Scaleformer-Our
w/o amortize
w/o HPL
NSFormer-Our
w/o Amortize
w/o HPL
NLinear-Our
w/o Amortize
w/o HPL
Fund-123
1
87.15
88.22
88.29
90.63
92.7
93.19
84.99
86.05
86.22
89.44
91.15
92.55
5
104.42
107.31
108.33
98.12
100.09
103.04
94.94
96.31
96.96
92.11
92.96
94.37
8
105.33
106.13
107.03
100.67
102.26
103.16
94.65
96.84
95.92
97.14
97.67
99.09
10
106.31
108.04
107.88
101.29
103.58
102.3
95.77
96.59
96.38
99.8
100.51
101.62
Table 4. Ablation study on fund sales datasets. The WMAPE of Fund1, Fund2, and Fund3 on each prediction step are averaged and reported. “w/o Amortize” denotes not using the amortization model and “w/o HPL” denotes removing hierarchical buckets in Figure 2 (c) and the design of Figure 2 (b) is adopted. The best results are in bold.
TimeMixer
PatchTST
Autoformer
NSFormer
Scaleformer
NLinear
NHits
Electricity (w/o HPL)
0.306
0.252
0.354
0.338
0.356
0.364
0.261
± 4e-3
± 3e-4
± 0.01128
± 0.01135
± 0.017
± 0.002
± 2e-4
Electricity (w/ HPL)
0.288
0.249
0.339
0.325
0.346
0.319
0.254
± 3e-3
± 2e-4
± 0.010
± 0.007
± 0.014
± 0.001
± 2e-4
Traffic (w/o HPL)
0.655
0.512
0.654
0.66
0.657
0.794
0.510
± 0.013
± 1e-3
± 0.02
± 0.012
± 0.017
± 3e-3
± 6e-3
Table 5. Further demonstrating the effectiveness of hierarchical predictability-aware loss (HPL) on two large-scale datasets. We report the standard deviations and average of MSE and MAE across 96, 192, 336, and 720 prediction steps.
Figure 3. Loss landscapes of Autoformer with and without APTF on the Fund sales dataset for 10-step forecasting. A flatter minimum (larger blue area) indicates better generalization. Additional cases are provided in Appendix Figure 7 .
ETTh1
ETTm1
weather
Fund1
Fund2
Fund3
TimeMixer-Original
0.517
0.404
0.269
89.963
85.512
85.14
-Wavebound
0.706
0.489
0.279
206.9
186.198
328.27
-Coteaching
0.508
0.402
0.268
100.23
95.716
94.893
-APTF (Ours)
0.492
0.396
0.264
87.91
84.36
83.659
PatchTST-Original
0.430
0.369
0.244
88.811
86.472
86.593
-Wavebound
0.434
0.364
0.245
191.085
197.374
201.886
Table 6. Comparison with WaveBound and Co-teaching. We report average performance across all prediction steps (average WMAPE for Fund and average MSE and MAE for other datasets). Hyperparameter search results for Co-teaching are provided in Appendix Table 11 .
Figure 4. Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis.
TimeMixer
Autoformer
NSFormer
Scaleformer
NLinear
NHits
Original
0.306
0.344
0.330
0.35
0.355
0.262
+APTF
0.288
0.335
0.321
0.336
0.319
0.255
+ARL
0.307
0.357
0.329
0.347
0.367
0.273
+SPL
0.300
0.349
0.332
0.451
0.360
0.262
Table 7. Comparison with predictability-aware loss functions on the Electricity dataset. We report the average MSE and MAE over prediction horizons of 96, 192, 336, and 720 steps. ARL ( Barron, 2019 ) denotes adaptive robust loss, while SPL ( Kumar et al., 2010 ) denotes self-paced learning loss.
ET.h1
ET.h2
ET.m1
ET.m2
Fund1
Fund2
Fund3
TimeMixer-Original
0.537
0.405
0.402
0.281
89.96
85.51
85.14
-Ours (w/o amortization)
0.512
0.385
0.396
0.279
88.5
84.62
84.02
PatchTST-Original
0.423
0.347
0.351
0.258
88.81
86.47
86.59
-Ours (w/o amortization)
0.416
0.345
0.345
0.250
87.2
85.7
85.45
NHiTS-Original
0.526
0.612
0.386
0.307
91.69
91.53
90.33
-Ours (w/o amortization)
0.499
0.582
0.373
0.291
87.9
87.1
85.8
Table 8. APTF can still improve baseline accuracy without introducing additional time complexity or memory overhead when the amortization model is not used. We report the average WMAPE for the Fund datasets and the average MSE for the other datasets.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5. Time series visualization of Fund sales dataset.
CATS
ModernTCN
TimeXer
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
Fund1
85.72
88.17
86.47
90.28
83.97
86.29
Fund2
82.92
84.79
83.83
85.07
82.1
83.55
Fund3
80.56
83.91
82.55
85.16
81.38
84.02
Appendix
Table 9. Additional baselines for short-term TSF with average WMAPE on 1, 5, 8, and 10 future steps. Results for each prediction length are omitted due to limited space.
CATS
ModernTCN
TimeXer
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
ETTh1
0.426
0.430
0.426
0.438
0.436
0.445
ETTh2
0.363
0.373
0.365
0.374
0.367
0.373
ETTm1
0.357
0.366
0.371
0.386
0.377
0.382
ETTm2
0.288
0.313
0.289
0.302
0.284
0.295
Weather
0.245
0.246
0.246
0.251
0.248
0.249
Appendix
Table 10. Additional baselines for long-term TSF with average MSE and MAE on future 96, 192, 336, and 720 steps. Table 12 shows results for each prediction length.
Forget rate r
ETTh1
ETTm1
Weather
Fund1
Fund2
Fund3
TimeMixer, r =0.1
0.509
0.403
0.268
100.23
95.716
94.893
TimeMixer, r =0.2
0.508
0.403
0.269
101.29
96.11
95.571
TimeMixer, r =0.3
0.508
0.402
0.27
102.278
96.846
96.057
TimeMixer, r =0.4
0.509
0.402
0.27
102.972
97.133
96.714
PatchTST, r =0.1
0.429
0.37
0.245
88.604
88.668
87.022
PatchTST, r =0.2
0.429
0.371
0.246
89.706
90.582
88.074
Appendix
Table 11. Hyperparameter search for Coteaching. We report the average of MSE and MAE on predicting all timesteps. The forget rate r determines the number of samples discarded during the training process.
Figure 6. Visualizations of forecasting future 10-time steps on Fund1 and Fund2 datasets with the original baseline NHiTS (left) and Autoformer (right), as well as the versions of applying APTF (ours), Coteaching, and Wavebound.
CATS-APTF
CATS
ModernTCN-APTF
ModernTCN
TimeXer-APTF
TimeXer
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
ETTh1
96
0.379
0.4
0.389
0.408
0.37
0.399
0.381
0.411
0.394
0.412
0.396
0.416
192
0.4
0.417
0.409
0.424
0.403
0.422
0.42
0.439
0.421
0.431
0.423
0.438
336
0.421
0.434
0.422
0.436
0.428
0.438
0.441
0.452
0.436
0.448
0.441
0.459
720
0.482
0.473
0.482
0.471
0.47
0.477
0.476
0.481
0.462
0.485
0.488
0.498
ETTh2
96
0.278
0.345
0.28
0.35
0.269
0.335
0.279
0.347
0.278
0.346
0.279
0.347
Appendix
Table 12. Full results of CATS, ModernTCN, and TimeXer on long-term TSF on popular public datasets with average performance on four random seeds. Due to space limitations, the standard deviation is omitted, and we will show it in our full version paper.
Figure 7. Full results of loss landscapes on different baselines with the Fund1 dataset. The flatter the bottom (the larger the blue area) indicates the better the generalization of the trained models.
TimeMixer
PatchTST
Autoformer
NSformer
Scaleformer
NLinear
N-HiTS
Informer
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
+APTF
Original
ETTh1
96
0.434
0.45
0.377
0.38
0.465
0.492
0.512
0.544
0.506
0.507
0.423
0.442
0.432
0.448
0.9
0.948
192
0.49
0.522
0.406
0.412
0.479
0.494
0.5
0.51
0.494
0.495
0.449
0.464
0.466
0.484
1.031
1.05
336
0.512
0.535
0.427
0.436
0.476
0.484
0.49
0.496
0.566
0.579
0.466
0.478
0.496
0.516
1.079
1.056
720
0.532
0.56
0.472
0.49
0.548
0.544
0.541
0.542
0.607
0.619
0.475
0.492
0.57
0.616
1.141
1.176
ETTh2
96
0.316
0.326
0.304
0.31
0.376
0.409
0.39
0.406
0.381
0.408
0.318
0.328
0.349
0.385
1.225
1.568
Appendix
Table 13. Full results of long-term forecasting on remaining baselines. with average performance on four random seeds. Due to space limitations, the standard deviation is omitted, and we will show it in our full version paper.
Training time-series forecasting models poses unique challenges in loss function design. Most existing approaches adopt temporal mean squared error, but this study reveals two critical limitations: (1) it ignores the presence of label autocorrelation, which biases it from the true label sequence likelihood; (2) it involves excessive number of tasks, which complicates optimization, especially for long-term forecasting. To address these issues, we introduce Time-o1, a transform-enhanced loss function for time-series forecasting. The central idea is to transform the label sequence into decorrelated components with discriminated significance. Models are then trained to align the most significant components, thereby effectively mitigating label autocorrelation and reducing task amount. Experiments demonstrate that Time-o1 achieves state-of-the-art performance and is compatible with various forecast models. Code is available at https://github.com/Master-PLC/Time-o1.
Hao Wang, Licheng Pan, Zhichao Chen +5
Xiaohongshu Inc. · State Key Lab of General AI, School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Peking University · Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China +4
Sample-level reliability heterogeneity is common in deep time series learning. Standard training pipelines apply a uniform regularization setting to all samples, which can under-regularize corrupted samples and over-restrict clean samples. Common robustness approaches filter observations in data space or impose priors on latent representations. We propose Capacity-Centric Modulation (CCM) as a complementary, sample-adaptive regularization principle. Under this principle, we introduce SACM (Sample-Adaptive Capacity Modulation), a task-agnostic framework that exploits spectral sparsity to assign sample-wise dropout probabilities along internal activation paths. SACM integrates into existing backbones without architectural redesign and preserves the deterministic inference pipeline. Across 301 real-world dataset-backbone pairs covering 9 forecasting, 32 classification, and 4 anomaly-detection datasets, SACM reduces forecasting MSE by 6.7% on average and improves classification accuracy and point-adjusted F1 by 3.04% and 17.05%, respectively, relative to unmodified backbones, with zero test-time overhead.
Siru Zhong, Senzhang Wang, James T. Kwok +1
Data Science & Analytics Thrust, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (GZ), Guangzhou, China · School of Computer Science & Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China · Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) advance generalization and data efficiency in time series forecasting by unified large-scale pretraining. But TSFMs remain lacking when adapting to specific downstream forecasting tasks for two reasons. First, the non-stationary and uncertain nature of time series data lead to inevitable temporal distribution shifts between historical training and future testing data, while current Supervised FineTuning (SFT)-based methods are prone to overfitting and may degrade generalization. Second, training data availability varies across forecasting tasks, requiring TSFMs to generalize well under diverse data regimes. To address these challenges, we introduce the Time series Reinforcement Finetuning (TimeRFT) paradigm for TSFM downstream adaptation, which consists of two task-specific training recipes: i) A forecasting quality-based temporal reward mechanism that conducts a multi-faceted evaluation of the contribution of each prediction step to overall forecasting accuracy. ii) A forecasting difficulty-based data selection strategy to identify time series samples with generalizable predictive patterns and informative training signals. Extensive experiments demonstrate TimeRFT can consistently outperform SFT-based adaptation methods across various real-world forecasting tasks and training data regimes, enhancing prediction accuracy and generalization against unforeseen distribution shifts.
Siyang Li, Yize Chen, Zijie Zhu +4
HKUST(GZ) Guangzhou, China · University of Alberta Edmonton, Canada · Alibaba Cloud Guangzhou, China +3