TEFL: Prediction-Residual-Guided Rolling Forecasting for Multi-Horizon Time Series
Authors: Xiannan Huang, Shen Fang, Shuhan Qiu, Chengcheng Yu, Jiayuan Du, Chao Yang
Organizations: Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering, Ministry of Education Tongji University, Shanghai China · Research Center for Scientific Data Hub, Zhejiang Lab, Hangzhou, China · The College of Computer Science, Tongji University, Shanghai China
Time series forecasting plays a critical role in domains such as transportation, energy, and meteorology. Despite their success, modern deep forecasting models are typically trained to minimize point-wise prediction loss without leveraging the rich information contained in past prediction residuals from rolling forecasts - residuals that reflect persistent biases, unmodeled patterns, or evolving dynamics. We propose TEFL (Temporal Error Feedback Learning), a unified learning framework that explicitly incorporates these historical residuals into the forecasting pipeline during both training and evaluation. To make this practical in deep multi-step settings, we address three key challenges: (1) selecting observable multi-step residuals under the partial observability of rolling forecasts, (2) integrating them through a lightweight low-rank adapter to preserve efficiency and prevent overfitting, and (3) designing a two-stage training procedure that jointly optimizes the base forecaster and error module. Extensive experiments across 10 real-world datasets and 5 backbone architectures show that TEFL consistently improves accuracy, reducing MAE by 5-10% on average. Moreover, it demonstrates strong robustness under abrupt changes and distribution shifts, with error reductions exceeding 10% (up to 19.5%) in challenging scenarios. By embedding residual-based feedback directly into the learning process, TEFL offers a simple, general, and effective enhancement to modern deep forecasting systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Example of historical errors
Figure 2: Illustration of TEFL joint training pipeline.
Figure 3: Examples of shock and distribution shift
Model
SOFTS
iTrans
Dlinear
TimeFilter
Amplifier
AVG ↓
IMP
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Baseline
0.394
0.404
0.408
0.410
0.404
0.407
0.381
0.395
0.383
0.397
0.394
0.402
ETTm1
+TEFL
0.362
0.378
0.380
0.388
0.372
0.384
0.366
0.376
0.366
0.378
0.369
0.381
6.3%
5.4%
Baseline
0.303
0.330
0.289
0.334
0.346
0.396
0.273
0.323
0.279
0.325
0.298
0.341
ETTm2
+TEFL
0.271
0.320
0.274
0.323
0.278
0.328
0.265
0.316
0.268
0.317
0.271
0.321
9.1%
6.0%
Baseline
0.256
0.278
0.258
0.279
0.266
0.316
0.241
0.271
0.246
0.273
0.253
0.283
Table 1: Main results. Lower is better (↓). AVG denotes the average performance across five base models; IMP shows the relative improvement (%) of +TEFL over Baseline.
Dataset
ETTm1
ETTm2
Weather
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Baseline
0.650
0.516
0.563
0.451
0.621
0.449
Amplifier
+TEFL
0.579
0.474
0.505
0.425
0.539
0.404
Baseline
0.704
0.539
0.511
0.435
0.549
0.411
iTrans
+TEFL
0.634
0.498
0.480
0.413
0.522
0.388
Baseline
0.711
0.560
0.733
0.598
0.619
0.527
Table 2: Results for shock data. Lower is better.
Dataset
ETTm1
ETTm2
Weather
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Baseline
0.472
0.459
0.342
0.392
0.441
0.451
Amplifier
+TEFL
0.435
0.429
0.283
0.340
0.286
0.333
Baseline
0.531
0.508
0.310
0.384
0.450
0.443
iTrans
+TEFL
0.492
0.485
0.273
0.344
0.367
0.395
Baseline
0.589
0.565
0.358
0.428
0.562
0.571
Table 3: Results for data with distribution shift. Lower is better.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Comparison of Baseline and TEFL Methods for different input window size
Figure 5: Examples about spectral flatness
Model
SOFTS
iTrans
Dlinear
TimeFilter
Amplifier
AVG
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Baseline
0.322
0.361
0.344
0.370
0.345
0.372
0.315
0.356
0.316
0.358
0.329
0.363
Type 1
0.323
0.364
0.342
0.380
0.344
0.376
0.321
0.361
0.317
0.359
0.330
0.368
Type 2
0.300
0.340
0.319
0.347
0.318
0.351
0.300
0.336
0.304
0.336
0.308
0.342
w\o SF
0.321
0.363
0.333
0.370
0.341
0.374
0.324
0.364
0.320
0.361
0.328
0.366
96
TEFL
0.299
0.337
0.314
0.344
0.311
0.348
0.299
0.336
0.298
0.336
0.304
0.340
Appendix
Table 4: Results of different training methods
Figure 6: Different choices of historical errors
Figure 7: Different error modules
Model
SOFTS
iTrans
Dlinear
TimeFilter
Amplifier
AVG
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Baseline
0.322
0.361
0.344
0.370
0.345
0.372
0.315
0.356
0.316
0.358
0.329
0.363
Type2
0.323
0.361
0.339
0.375
0.333
0.367
0.318
0.358
0.313
0.354
0.325
0.363
Type3
0.323
0.363
0.340
0.378
0.334
0.369
0.318
0.358
0.312
0.354
0.325
0.364
96
TEFL
0.299
0.337
0.314
0.344
0.311
0.348
0.299
0.336
0.298
0.336
0.304
0.340
Baseline
0.376
0.390
0.380
0.394
0.382
0.391
0.359
0.381
0.365
0.384
0.372
0.388
Appendix
Table 5: Results of different error selection methods
Model
SOFTS
iTrans
Dlinear
TimeFilter
Amplifier
AVG
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Baseline
0.322
0.361
0.344
0.370
0.345
0.372
0.315
0.356
0.316
0.358
0.329
0.363
Gate
0.320
0.345
0.320
0.349
0.328
0.349
0.310
0.337
0.326
0.350
0.321
0.346
Fuse
0.377
0.408
0.411
0.425
0.412
0.426
0.410
0.428
0.367
0.402
0.395
0.418
96
TEFL
0.299
0.337
0.314
0.344
0.311
0.348
0.299
0.336
0.298
0.336
0.304
0.340
Baseline
0.376
0.390
0.380
0.394
0.382
0.391
0.359
0.381
0.365
0.384
0.372
0.388
Appendix
Table 6: Results of different error modules
Model
SOFTS
iTrans
Dlinear
TimeFilter
Amplifier
Avg
Imp
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Baseline
0.322
0.361
0.344
0.370
0.345
0.372
0.315
0.356
0.316
0.358
0.329
0.363
96
TEFL
0.299
0.337
0.314
0.344
0.311
0.348
0.299
0.336
0.298
0.336
0.304
0.340
7.4%
6.4%
Baseline
0.376
0.390
0.380
0.394
0.382
0.391
0.359
0.381
0.365
0.384
0.372
0.388
192
TEFL
0.343
0.363
0.357
0.375
0.353
0.369
0.343
0.361
0.342
0.360
0.348
0.366
6.7%
5.7%
Baseline
0.408
0.414
0.419
0.418
0.414
0.414
0.390
0.403
0.396
0.406
0.406
0.411
Appendix
Table 7: Full results I
Model
SOFTS
iTrans
Dlinear
TimeFilter
Amplifier
Avg
Imp
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Baseline
0.814
0.489
0.832
0.498
0.784
0.512
0.803
0.486
0.788
0.483
0.804
0.494
96
TEFL
0.782
0.476
0.800
0.478
0.783
0.484
0.788
0.475
0.770
0.465
0.785
0.476
2.4%
3.6%
Baseline
0.877
0.512
0.889
0.516
0.843
0.537
0.870
0.510
0.844
0.508
0.865
0.516
192
TEFL
0.803
0.492
0.816
0.494
0.802
0.496
0.808
0.491
0.788
0.480
0.804
0.491
7.0%
5.0%
Baseline
0.891
0.522
0.907
0.527
0.856
0.546
0.884
0.519
0.872
0.523
0.882
0.527
Appendix
Table 8: Full results II
Model
Amplifier
iTrans
Dlinear
SOFTS
TimeFilter
Avg
Imp
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Baseline
0.543
0.463
0.653
0.514
0.583
0.490
0.531
0.453
0.497
0.432
0.561
0.470
96
TEFL
0.498
0.428
0.573
0.465
0.523
0.442
0.475
0.408
0.459
0.397
0.506
0.428
9.9%
8.9%
Baseline
0.541
0.459
0.657
0.512
0.686
0.543
0.648
0.511
0.600
0.487
0.626
0.503
192
TEFL
0.490
0.423
0.589
0.472
0.594
0.478
0.594
0.478
0.548
0.447
0.563
0.460
10.1%
8.5%
Baseline
0.706
0.544
0.709
0.542
0.743
0.579
0.715
0.543
0.648
0.520
0.704
0.546
Appendix
Table 9: Full results for dataset with shocks
Model
Amplifier
iTrans
Dlinear
SOFTS
TimeFilter
Avg
Imp
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Baseline
0.409
0.422
0.456
0.458
0.421
0.453
0.513
0.497
0.535
0.527
0.467
0.471
96
TEFL
0.368
0.394
0.441
0.448
0.327
0.358
0.425
0.436
0.512
0.481
0.414
0.423
11.2%
10.2%
Baseline
0.424
0.428
0.493
0.482
0.496
0.505
0.483
0.477
0.558
0.547
0.491
0.488
192
TEFL
0.392
0.401
0.429
0.443
0.393
0.409
0.454
0.452
0.475
0.466
0.429
0.434
12.6%
11.0%
Baseline
0.477
0.466
0.519
0.500
0.598
0.578
0.573
0.532
0.788
0.684
0.591
0.552
Appendix
Table 10: Full results for datasets with distribution shift
Time series forecasting predicts future values from ordered observations using statistical, neural, and probabilistic models to support decisions under uncertainty.
Transformer-based models have emerged as leading paradigms in time-series forecasting in recent years, employing self-attention mechanisms to capture long-range dependencies. Despite their success, these single-stage forecasting architectures exhibit persistent systematic residual biases arising from structural discrepancies, unmodeled stochastic components, or inadequate multi-scale temporal representations. This limitation persists when residuals are treated as irreducible noise, precluding adaptive correction of structured error patterns. To address this limitation, we introduce a two-stage, model-agnostic framework that explicitly decouples forecasting and residual learning into distinct stages of representation learning. A base transformer first generates the initial predictions. Subsequently, a dedicated meta-corrector dynamically models structured error patterns across multivariate channels, preserves cross-variable dependencies, and iteratively refines the residual bias of the base transformer. By formalizing this pipeline as a hypothesis space expansion, our framework addresses approximation limitations inherent in single-stage architectures, removes reliance on restrictive assumptions, and enables end-to-end learning of complex error dynamics. Evaluated on eight popular benchmark datasets using established protocols, our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance, with significant improvements in standard metrics (MSE, MAE). The results demonstrate the framework's ability to mitigate systematic biases and enhance robustness to complex temporal dynamics, advancing the practical applicability of transformer-based forecasting models.
Amrijit Biswas, Mustafa Kamal, Robin Krambroeckers +4
Artificial Intelligence Department, RobotBulls Labs Geneva, Switzerland · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, North South University Dhaka, Bangladesh
Time series forecasting models are increasingly deployed in continuously evolving environments. After a forecast is issued, future observations gradually arrive and reveal how the model has failed. Existing methods mainly treat such observations as supervision for parameter updates. However, it remains unclear whether verified forecasting errors can themselves provide causal feedback for correcting future predictions. To address this, we introduce Error Feedback Calibration (EFC), a fully test-time framework for deterministic post-hoc correction of time series forecasting. EFC constructs a Causal Error Diagonal (CED) from revealed errors of overlapping historical forecasts, providing a fresh view of the frozen forecaster's recent failure behavior. Then Cumulative Error Transport (CET) maps this error state to future residuals using cumulative estimation, while temporal out-of-sample validation controls the correction strength. Temporal Residual Learning (TRL) further predicts only the residual structure left after CET from recent CED trajectories, rather than relearning the entire forecasting error. Extensive experiments across forecasting backbones and datasets show that EFC broadly improves forecasting performance while substantially controlling harmful over correction.
Haonan Yang, Yulin He, Zhuo Li
College of Computer Science and Technology, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China.
Modern deep-learning models have achieved remarkable success in time-series forecasting. Yet, their performance degrades in long-term prediction due to error accumulation in autoregressive inference, where predictions are recursively used as inputs. While classical error correction mechanisms (ECMs) have long been used in statistical methods, their applicability to deep learning models remains limited or ineffective. In this work, we revisit the error accumulation problem in deep time-series forecasting and investigate the role and necessity of ECMs in this new context. We propose a simple, architecture-agnostic error correction model that can be integrated with any existing forecaster without requiring retraining. By explicitly decomposing predictions into trend and seasonal components and training the corrector to adjust each separately, we introduce the Universal Error Corrector with Seasonal-Trend Decomposition (UEC-STD), which significantly improves correction accuracy and robustness across 4 backbones and 10 datasets. Our findings provide a practical tool for enhancing forecasts while offering new insights into mitigating autoregressive errors in deep time-series models. Code is available at https://github.com/DA2I2-SLM/UEC-STD.
Minh Hoang Nguyen, Dai Do, Huu Hiep Nguyen +3
Deakin Applied AI Initiative, Deakin University, Australia.