Multimodal time series forecasting has garnered significant attention for its potential to provide more accurate predictions than traditional single-modality models by leveraging rich information inherent in other modalities. However, due to fundamental challenges in modality alignment, existing methods often struggle to effectively incorporate multimodal data into predictions, particularly textual information that has a causal influence on time series fluctuations, such as emergency reports and policy announcements. In this paper, we reflect on the role of textual information in numerical forecasting and propose Time series transformers with Multimodal Mixture-of-Experts, TiMi, to unleash the causal reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Concretely, TiMi utilizes LLMs to generate inferences on future developments, which serve as guidance for time series forecasting. To seamlessly integrate both exogenous factors and time series into predictions, we introduce a Multimodal Mixture-of-Experts (MMoE) module as a lightweight plug-in to empower Transformer-based time series models for multimodal forecasting, eliminating the need for explicit representation-level alignment. Experimentally, our proposed TiMi demonstrates consistent state-of-the-art performance on sixteen real-world multimodal forecasting benchmarks, outperforming advanced baselines while offering both strong adaptability and interpretability.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Two types of multimodal time series data exist in real-world forecasting scenarios. Compared to series-metadata data, which is semantically aligned like vision-language data, series-textual data lacks this direct alignment but often offers richer and more informative insights for prediction.
Figure 2: Three categories of multimodal time series forecasting models distinguished through fusion.
Figure 3: Overall design of TiMi, a time series-centric Transformer model. Textual content is encoded by LLMs to infer future trends of predictions. The MMoE module integrates a global view of both historical input and causal knowledge derived from text, thereby enhancing the time series modeling.
Models
TiMi
Time-MMD
AutoTimes
Time-LLM
GPT4TS
TimeXer
iTransformer
PatchTST
TimesNet
DLinear
Autoformer
(Ours)
( 2024a )
( 2024d )
( 2023 )
( 2023 )
( 2024 )
( 2024c )
( 2022 )
( 2023a )
( 2023 )
( 2021 )
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Agriculture
0.193
0.299
0.213
0.301
1.032
0.716
0.262
0.318
0.224
0.306
0.230
0.306
0.227
0.306
0.242
0.312
0.217
0.316
0.511
0.514
0.282
0.350
Climate
0.872
0.737
0.968
0.783
0.944
0.758
0.915
0.750
0.928
0.756
0.950
0.767
0.970
0.779
0.977
0.779
0.930
0.767
0.915
0.750
0.943
0.763
Economy
0.012
0.086
0.022
0.123
0.736
0.729
0.018
0.110
0.014
0.096
0.013
0.091
0.012
0.087
0.013
0.093
0.014
0.096
0.086
0.237
0.061
0.194
Energy
0.229
0.344
0.254
0.365
0.335
0.432
0.266
0.380
0.280
0.397
0.247
0.361
0.253
0.364
0.288
0.392
0.271
0.383
0.310
0.418
0.306
0.418
Table 1: Multimodal time series forecasting results on Time-MMD datasets with the best in red and the second underlined . Based on the varying sampling frequencies of each dataset, there are three fixed input lengths of 8 , 24 , and 96 , respectively corresponding to three sets of prediction lengths {6,8,10,12} , {12,24,36,48} , and {48,96,192,336} . The table reports the average results across all prediction lengths.
Figure 4: Irregular multimodal time series forecasting results on Time-IMM datasets. The metric for comparison is MSE. We compared four methods using PatchTST as the temporal backbone, among which the baseline results of IMM-TSF and PatchTST were derived from Time-IMM ( Chang et al., 2025 ) .
Figure 5: Multimodal time series forecasting results of replacing the LLM backbone. The time series backbone is fixed as PatchTST. The result is the average performance across four dataset-specific prediction horizons. For detailed results, please refer to the Appendix H.3 .
Datasets
Agriculture
Climate
Energy
Security
SocialGood
Traffic
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
TimeXer
Original
0.230
0.306
0.950
0.767
0.247
0.361
78.924
4.305
1.302
0.514
0.176
0.220
+MMoE
0.203
0.304
0.878
0.738
0.226
0.342
71.635
3.929
0.962
0.512
0.155
0.219
Promotion
11.7%
0.7%
7.6%
3.8%
8.5%
5.3%
9.2%
8.7%
26.1%
0.4%
11.9%
0.5%
PatchTST
Original
0.242
0.312
0.977
0.779
0.288
0.392
84.305
4.560
1.293
0.523
0.173
0.219
+MMoE
0.193
0.299
0.872
0.737
0.229
0.344
71.519
3.896
0.886
0.449
0.154
0.218
Table 2: Performance improvement achieved by applying the MMoE module. Each result represents the average across the four prediction lengths, with ”Promotion” indicating the percentage enhancement relative to the original model. The results fully demonstrate the versatility of the TiMi framework. Complete results are provided in the Appendix H.1 .
Design
Textual
Temporal
Agriculture
Energy
Health(US)
SocialGood
Traffic
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
TiMi
TMoE
SMoE
0.193
0.299
0.229
0.344
1.194
0.745
0.886
0.449
0.154
0.218
w/o
w/o
SMoE
0.204
0.301
0.231
0.346
1.267
0.759
0.988
0.463
0.154
0.226
TMoE
w/o
0.200
0.300
0.251
0.366
1.255
0.764
0.892
0.473
0.167
0.214
Replace
MoE
MoE
0.231
0.311
0.264
0.373
1.268
0.763
0.958
0.471
0.162
0.222
Cross
SMoE
0.222
0.304
0.272
0.373
1.268
0.764
0.904
0.453
0.160
0.234
Table 3: Ablations results on TiMi. The experiments includes the removal of specific components, the replacement of components, and the random initialization of the LLM. Each result reports the average performance across the dataset’s four prediction lengths.
Figure 6: Visualization of the role of Series-aware MoE. Time series are grouped into four trend regimes based on MK test, represented by distinct colors. Series with different trend are consistently routed to different experts.
Figure 7: Visualization results on the Health(US) dataset.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Agriculture
Climate
Economy
Horizon
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
6/6/6
0.125 ± 0.002
0.244 ± 0.001
0.860 ± 0.003
0.733 ± 0.002
0.011 ± 0.001
0.084 ± 0.001
8/8/8
0.174 ± 0.003
0.285 ± 0.002
0.865 ± 0.001
0.734 ± 0.001
0.011 ± 0.001
0.085 ± 0.001
10/10/10
0.220 ± 0.004
0.315 ± 0.003
0.879 ± 0.004
0.739 ± 0.002
0.012 ± 0.001
0.088 ± 0.001
12/12/12
0.254 ± 0.010
0.350 ± 0.008
0.885 ± 0.005
0.741 ± 0.005
0.012 ± 0.001
0.088 ± 0.001
Dataset
Energy
Environment
Health(US)
Appendix
Table 4: Robustness of TiMi performance on the Time-MMD datasets. The results are obtained from three random seeds. The three values of horizon in each row of the table correspond respectively to the three datasets on the right.
Figure 8: General multi-dimensional time series reasoning prompts. The components include domain-specific prompts, textual information, system prompts, question and option prompts in three time series dimensions (trend, frequency, and noise).
Figure 9: A reasoning case on the Energy dataset. Prompts exhibit strong adaptability to variations in text quality, effectively extracting information about key temporal attributes.
Figure 10: Visualization of Series-aware analysis. The left and right figures are respectively conducted on dataset Climate and dataset Traffic. The strong downward, weak downward, weak upward, and strong upward correspond respectively to Z∈(−∞,−1) , Z∈[−1,0) , Z∈[0,1) , Z∈[1,+∞) .
Interference
Ratio
Agriculture
Energy
Health(US)
SocialGood
Traffic
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
TiMi
-
0.193
0.299
0.229
0.344
1.194
0.745
0.886
0.449
0.154
0.218
Noisy
5%
0.198
0.300
0.230
0.346
1.236
0.753
0.886
0.449
0.154
0.219
Noisy
20%
0.200
0.301
0.234
0.348
1.240
0.755
0.887
0.450
0.155
0.219
Synonymous
20%
0.205
0.304
0.252
0.365
1.264
0.882
1.025
0.470
0.159
0.221
Irrelevant
20%
0.201
0.301
0.232
0.347
1.245
0.758
0.887
0.450
0.156
0.220
Appendix
Table 5: Results of stress-test across multiple textual information distortion scenarios.
Figure 11: Visualization results on the Energy and Health(US) datasets configured with input-24-predict-12 setting. We make comparisons among the three models, TiMi, Time-MMD and PatchTST.
Models
Agriculture
Climate
Economy
Energy
Health(US)
Security
SocialGood
Traffic
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
TiMi
0.123
0.234
0.845
0.707
0.133
0.250
0.144
0.247
0.611
0.472
14.031
1.305
0.378
0.352
0.035
0.094
Time-MMD
0.127
0.242
0.889
0.731
0.148
0.276
0.145
0.248
0.716
0.564
15.567
1.419
0.417
0.390
0.071
0.152
PatchTST
0.128
0.242
0.849
0.710
0.140
0.257
0.155
0.257
0.625
0.484
15.198
1.382
0.394
0.372
0.041
0.110
Appendix
Table 6: Performance comparison on the temporal held-out test set (July 2023 – May 2024) to validate robustness against potential pre-training data leakage.
Models
TimeXer
TimeXer
PatchTST
PatchTST
Autoformer
Autoformer
( 2024 )
+MMoE
( 2022 )
+MMoE
( 2021 )
+MMoE
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Agriculture
6
0.143
0.248
0.132
0.254
0.174
0.262
0.125
0.244
0.220
0.317
0.172
0.282
8
0.218
0.299
0.170
0.289
0.216
0.302
0.174
0.285
0.257
0.336
0.190
0.290
10
0.240
0.316
0.228
0.321
0.262
0.327
0.220
0.315
0.304
0.358
0.265
0.367
12
0.320
0.361
0.281
0.353
0.315
0.357
0.254
0.350
0.349
0.391
0.305
0.397
Appendix
Table 7: Detailed results of the multimodal time series forecasting performance improvement achieved by applying the Multimodal Mixture of Experts (MMoE) module . Avg means the average results from all four prediction lengths.
Datasets
GDELT
RepoHealth
FNSPID
ClusterTrace
ILINet
CESNET
EPA-Air
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
TiMi (Ours)
1.0293
0.6889
0.5323
0.4161
0.1269
0.2217
0.6890
0.6756
0.9620
0.6651
0.8957
0.7271
0.5987
0.5792
IMM-TSF ( 2025 )
1.0511
0.6944
0.5520
0.4180
0.1277
0.2212
1.0370
0.8389
1.1727
0.7373
1.1242
0.8192
0.6204
0.5992
Time-MMD ( 2024a )
1.2352
0.7731
0.5786
0.4531
0.1413
0.2451
0.8304
0.7447
1.0404
0.6753
0.9706
0.7614
0.6506
0.5975
PatchTST ( 2022 )
1.0670
0.7051
0.5727
0.4185
0.1301
0.2240
2.0366
0.9896
1.1606
0.7532
1.3177
0.8797
0.6196
0.5947
Appendix
Table 8: Full results of irregular multimodal time series forecasting on Time-IMM datasets. The complete MSE and MAE indicators are presented.
Datasets
Agriculture
Climate
Economy
Energy
Health(US)
Security
SocialGood
Traffic
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Qwen2.5-7B
0.193
0.299
0.872
0.737
0.012
0.086
0.229
0.344
1.194
0.745
71.519
3.896
0.886
0.449
0.153
0.220
Qwen2.5-0.5B
0.223
0.309
0.892
0.774
0.012
0.089
0.255
0.364
1.270
0.767
73.520
4.026
1.002
0.473
0.159
0.217
GPT2
0.241
0.318
0.889
0.743
0.013
0.091
0.253
0.367
1.270
0.770
73.127
3.970
0.939
0.462
0.162
0.218
w/o LLM
0.242
0.312
0.977
0.779
0.013
0.093
0.288
0.392
1.252
0.759
84.305
4.560
1.293
0.523
0.173
0.219
Appendix
Table 9: Full results of replacing LLM backbone for time series forecasting. Each result is the average of the four predicted lengths of this dataset. w/o represents the baseline result of the single-modality.
Datasets
Agriculture
Climate
Economy
Energy
Environment
Health(US)
Security
SocialGood
Traffic
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
6/12/48
0.125
0.244
0.860
0.733
0.011
0.084
0.093
0.220
0.404
0.460
0.938
0.665
67.207
3.766
0.782
0.378
0.135
0.195
TiMi
8/24/96
0.174
0.285
0.865
0.734
0.011
0.085
0.196
0.322
0.408
0.464
1.163
0.732
68.888
3.847
0.820
0.408
0.152
0.221
(Ours)
10/36/192
0.220
0.315
0.879
0.739
0.012
0.088
0.271
0.389
0.408
0.463
1.300
0.787
74.324
3.930
0.925
0.465
0.158
0.221
12/48/336
0.254
0.350
0.885
0.741
0.012
0.088
0.354
0.446
0.411
0.462
1.374
0.796
75.658
4.040
1.016
0.545
0.170
0.234
Avg
0.193
0.299
0.872
0.737
0.012
0.086
0.229
0.344
0.408
0.462
1.194
0.745
71.519
3.896
0.886
0.449
0.154
0.218
Appendix
Table 10: Full results compared with the latest multimodal time series forecasting models with the best in bold . For monthly-sampled datasets such as Agriculture, Climate, Economy, Security, SocialGood, and Traffic, the prediction horizons are H∈{6,8,10,12} . For weekly-sampled datasets such as Energy and Health(US), H∈{12,24,36,48} . For the daily-sampled Environment dataset, H∈{48,96,192,336} . Avg means the average results from all four prediction lengths.
Models
TiMi
Time-MMD
AutoTimes
Time-LLM
GPT4TS
TimeXer
iTransformer
PatchTST
TimesNet
DLinear
Autoformer
(Ours)
( 2024a )
( 2024d )
( 2023 )
( 2023 )
( 2024 )
( 2024c )
( 2022 )
( 2023a )
( 2023 )
( 2021 )
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Agriculture
6
0.125
0.244
0.145
0.251
0.473
0.487
0.159
0.245
0.134
0.241
0.143
0.248
0.149
0.254
0.174
0.262
0.159
0.267
0.304
0.402
0.220
0.317
8
0.174
0.285
0.181
0.287
0.583
0.501
0.268
0.323
0.211
0.310
0.218
0.299
0.188
0.285
0.216
0.302
0.196
0.302
0.692
0.637
0.257
0.336
10
0.220
0.315
0.254
0.318
1.294
0.833
0.272
0.323
0.241
0.317
0.240
0.316
0.250
0.322
0.262
0.327
0.239
0.331
0.484
0.482
0.304
0.358
12
0.254
0.350
0.270
0.348
1.777
1.042
0.349
0.381
0.310
0.357
0.320
0.361
0.322
0.362
0.315
0.357
0.276
0.365
0.566
0.535
0.349
0.391
Appendix
Table 11: Full results of multimodal time series forecasting . There are three fixed input lengths of 8 , 24 , and 96 , each corresponding to a specific set of prediction lengths {6,8,10,12} , {12,24,36,48} , and {48,96,192,336} , respectively, following the setting of Time-MMD ( Liu et al., 2024a ) . Avg means the average results from all four prediction lengths.
Real-world time series exhibit complex and evolving dynamics, making accurate forecasting extremely challenging. Recent multi-modal forecasting methods leverage textual information such as news reports to improve prediction, but most rely on token-level fusion that mixes temporal patches with language tokens in a shared embedding space. However, such fusion can be ill-suited when high-quality time-text pairs are scarce and when time series exhibit substantial variation in characteristics, thus complicating cross-modal alignment. In parallel, mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures have proven effective for both time series modeling and multi-modal learning, yet many existing MoE-based modality integration methods still depend on token-level fusion. To address this, we propose Expert Modulation, a new mechanism for multi-modal time series prediction that conditions both routing and expert computation on textual signals, enabling direct and efficient cross-modal control over expert behavior. Through theoretical analysis and experiments, our proposed method demonstrates strong improvements in multi-modal time series prediction. The current code implementation is available at https://github.com/BruceZhangReve/MoME
Most existing time series forecasting methods rely solely on numerical observations, overlooking rich contextual information from auxiliary texts. Recent multimodal approaches attempt to incorporate textual signals, but they often treat text as static features or use large language models as forecasting backbones, limiting their ability to capture temporal dynamics and increasing computational cost. To address these challenges, we propose TAC-Time, a unified framework that transforms textual information into additional temporal channels. By modeling text features jointly with numerical sequences in a shared temporal backbone, TAC-Time preserves temporal continuity and periodic structures while remaining efficient and scalable. This formulation also enables systematic interpretability analyses. We show strong cross-modal dependencies through attention and frequency-domain analyses, and identify predictive textual signals whose correlation-aware alignment yields partial forecasting improvements. Extensive experiments on real-world multimodal benchmarks demonstrate that TAC-Time outperforms prior methods.
Multimodal time series forecasting is crucial in real-world applications, where decisions depend on both numerical data and contextual signals. The core challenge is to effectively combine temporal numerical patterns with the context embedded in other modalities, such as text. While most existing methods align textual features with time-series patterns one step at a time, they neglect the multiscale temporal influences of contextual information such as time-series cycles and dynamic shifts. This mismatch between local alignment and global textual context can be addressed by spectral decomposition, which separates time series into frequency components capturing both short-term changes and long-term trends. In this paper, we propose SpecTF, a simple yet effective framework that integrates the effect of textual data on time series in the frequency domain. Our method extracts textual embeddings, projects them into the frequency domain, and fuses them with the time series' spectral components using a lightweight cross-attention mechanism. This adaptively reweights frequency bands based on textual relevance before mapping the results back to the temporal domain for predictions. Experimental results demonstrate that SpecTF significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models across diverse multi-modal time series datasets while utilizing considerably fewer parameters. Code is available at https://github.com/hiepnh137/SpecTF.
Huu Hiep Nguyen, Minh Hoang Nguyen, Dung Nguyen +1
Applied Artificial Intelligence Initiative Deakin University Geelong, Australia