Time series reasoning demands both the perception of complex dynamics and logical depth. However, existing LLM-based approaches exhibit two limitations: they often treat time series merely as text or images, failing to capture the patterns like trends and seasonalities needed to answer specific questions; and when trained on a mix of simple and complex tasks, simpler objectives often dominate the learning process, hindering the development of deep reasoning capabilities. To address these limitations, we propose the Pattern-Aware Alignment and Balanced Reasoning model (PATRA), introducing a pattern-aware mechanism that extracts trend and seasonality patterns from time series to achieve deep alignment. Furthermore, we design a task-aware balanced reward to harmonize learning across tasks of varying difficulty, incentivizing the generation of coherent Chains of Thought. Extensive experiments show that PATRA outperforms strong baselines across diverse Time Series Question Answering (TSQA) tasks, demonstrating superior cross-modal understanding and reasoning capability.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of alignment paradigms in Time Series Question Answering. (a) Single-Modality Reasoning treats time series as text sequences, converting continuous numerical points into text tokens. (b) Multimodal Shallow Alignment introduces time series as a separate modality but relies on simple concatenation of embeddings. (c) Multimodal Deep Alignment addresses these limitations by explicitly decomposing time series into distinct patterns and fusing them with text embeddings via a dedicated module, ensuring that semantic reasoning is firmly grounded in physical data behaviors.
Figure 2: The framework of PATRA, which contains a Text Encoder for obtaining text embedding from pre-trained representations, a TS Encoder for embedding the time series, a Pattern-Aware Alignment to align the gap between text embedding and time series embedding, and an LLM Backbone to reason the questions.
Figure 3: Overview of PATRA’s two training stages. Alignment Stage performs supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with cross-entropy (CE) loss, while Reasoning-Enhanced Stage applies reinforcement learning, including format and task reward under the GRPO strategy to optimize the policy model.
Modalities
Models
Comp.
Recog.
Reason.
Presc.
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Textual
GPT-4o
50.86
11.99
69.65
4.75
50.00
7.75
66.66
6.78
TimeOmni-1 7B
37.93
14.16
41.93
9.10
42.56
12.78
42.59
10.40
Deepseek-R1 7B
40.52
13.65
12.41
8.40
18.24
10.34
14.81
8.59
Llama3 8B
33.62
5.15
36.27
4.11
27.02
5.26
25.92
3.22
Qwen2.5 7B
42.24
18.77
45.51
10.32
36.48
18.72
26.85
10.67
Table 1: Evaluation results for the four tasks, with the best and second-best performances highlighted respectively in open-source model in red with bold and orange with underline. We regard GPT-4o as the upper bound, which is not in the comparison set.
Type
Models
Weather
Finance (7 days)
Finance (30 days)
MCQ. ↑
Pre. ↑
3-way ↑
5-way ↑
MSE ↓
3-way ↑
5-way ↑
MSE ↓
Proprietary Models
GPT-5.2
59.16
43.76
52.35
49.80
0.196
48.95
36.05
0.985
Gemini-3-Pro
58.74
43.68
53.11
49.79
0.209
42.20
30.27
0.999
GPT-4o
41.70
43.54
42.81
36.45
0.365
47.35
30.58
0.897
Gemini
56.96
51.76
47.30
43.40
0.384
44.90
29.70
0.975
Claude
59.78
56.87
44.90
33.40
0.373
52.05
31.70
1.171
Table 2: Out of domain results about weather news-driven multiple-choice QA (MCQA), weather trend prediction accuracy, finance 3 and 5 stock trend prediction accuracy and finance MACD prediction MSE. The best and second performances are highlighted respectively in red with bold and orange with underline. And "-" represents that the model can not generate correct answers.
Models
Reason.
Presc.
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
W/ Single-Pattern Alignment
35.81
26.19
37.03
24.03
W/O Pattern-Aware Alignment
28.37
16.81
30.55
16.94
W/O Reasoning-Enhanced Stage
13.51
2.92
16.66
13.06
PATRA
44.59
27.36
52.78
27.06
Table 3: Ablation Studies on PATRA. Due to space limitations, we only report results on the two tasks folowing, while other tasks show similar results in Appendix C .
Model
Setting
Comp. ↑
Recog. ↑
Reason. ↑
Presc. ↑
Zero-shot
12.93
12.41
18.24
14.81
DeepSeek-R1-7B
Tuned
40.52
29.65
30.40
25.00
Zero-shot
6.03
19.72
10.13
27.77
TimeMQA-Qwen-7B
Tuned
10.34
24.41
13.51
26.85
Zero-shot
6.90
12.41
10.81
9.26
TimeMQA-Mistral-7B
Tuned
18.96
26.20
12.83
28.70
Table 4: Performance comparison under Zero-shot and Tuned settings across four tasks.
Figure 4: Case Study of TS Reasoning Task, comparing the answers of a single-modality LLM (Qwen2.5), a multimodal LLM (ChatTS), and our proposed model (PATRA).
Models
Comp.
Recog.
Reason.
Presc.
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Original Reward
39.65
21.92
48.83
19.00
37.84
21.64
35.18
16.88
Balanced Reward
56.03
25.67
64.69
25.46
44.59
27.36
52.78
27.06
Table 5: Ablation study on the Reward Balancing Strategy. "Original Reward" refers to training with raw, unscaled rewards, while "Balanced Reward" maps all task rewards to [0,2] .
Figure 5: Attention bias in Pattern-Aware Alignment.
Figure 6: The analysis study of Latent Decomposition.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Models
Comp.
Recog.
Reason.
Presc.
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
Acc. ↑
Rou. ↑
W/ Single-Pattern Alignment
44.82
24.59
58.48
23.50
35.81
26.19
37.03
24.03
W/O Pattern-Aware Alignment
40.51
15.36
47.03
15.18
28.37
16.81
30.55
16.94
W/O Reasoning-Enhanced Stage
40.51
3.21
16.68
5.51
13.51
2.92
16.66
13.06
PATRA
56.03
25.67
64.69
25.46
44.59
27.36
52.78
27.06
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation Studies on PATRA. Due to space limitations, we only report results on the two tasks folowing, while other tasks show similar results in Appendix C .
Figure 7: The Loss of Alignment stage and the Total Reward Curve in Reasoning-Enhanced Stage.
Type
Models
Forecasting
Anomaly Detection
Classification
MSE ↓
Acc. ↑
Acc. ↑
Proprietary Models
Doubao
-
0.52
0.44
GPT-4o
1.79
0.64
0.32
Open-source Models
backbones
TimeMQA
Llama-3-8B
2.01
0.54
0.24
Qwen-2.5-7B
1.82
0.68
0.52
Appendix
Table 7: Three Common Time Series Tasks’ Evaluations. We use the Accuracy metric for Anomaly Detection and Classification tasks and the MSE metric for the Forecasting task.
Time Series Language Models (TSLMs) offer a promising path toward time series understanding by reasoning over temporal signals and producing natural language answers and explanations. A common approach is Chain-of-Thought (CoT), which generates step-by-step rationales linking relevant signal patterns to final answers. Although these models learn from reference CoT traces during post-training, generating faithful descriptions of input time series at inference remains challenging. Expressing high-dimensional, continuous temporal representations in discrete language tokens may cause the model to neglect task-relevant patterns or describe them inaccurately. Because later reasoning steps build on these descriptions, early errors propagate, leading to incorrect answers with plausible explanations that are inconsistent with the input signal. We propose Lapras (Latent Post-trained Reasoning Across Series), a post-training framework that equips TSLMs with latent reasoning. A model trained with Lapras reasons through a sequence of continuous thoughts in the joint time series-language space, producing text only for the final answer. It learns this through teacher-student self-distillation, where a teacher trained on CoT reference traces reasons explicitly through text. The student aligns its hidden states with the teacher's at the answer stage, transferring the teacher's reasoning ability into its latent computation. We evaluate Lapras across four TSLM backbones on five time series question answering benchmarks. Lapras improves average F1 by up to 10.79% over explicit CoT while generating 23.9x fewer tokens. Lapras's continuous thoughts can also be decoded into readable reasoning traces via standard language decoding, preserving textual explanations. Together, these results highlight Lapras as a promising post-training paradigm for efficient, effective, and interpretable TSLM reasoning.
Yuliang Chen, Yu Yvonne Wu, Patrick Langer +11
Dartmouth College · Aionic Labs · Agentic Systems Lab, ETH Zurich +2
Timeseries multimodal large language models (TS-MLLMs) have recently begun leveraging the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for question-answering tasks. However, these models often fail to capture dynamic temporal patterns, providing only implicit reasoning that lacks the underlying explanations critical for high-stakes applications like healthcare. While reinforcement learning (RL)-based timeseries language models aim to address this, they often fall short because they are trained on narrow, in-distribution data and struggle with out-of-distribution compositional questions. To address these challenges, we present TimeThink, a synthetic framework for eliciting compositional timeseries reasoning. Core timeseries primitives (e.g., trend, seasonality) are domain-independent and can be deterministically generated. Guided by this premise, TimeThink first designs a synthetic data generator that produces atomic and composite question-answer pairs, providing objective ground truth with reasoning traces. Building on this framework, TimeThink employs a reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) training strategy that encourages explicit reasoning. Unlike template-reliant methods, this approach enables the model to learn the underlying logic of composition rather than simply imitating traces. Extensive experiments show that TimeThink, trained only on synthetic data, significantly outperforms strong baselines on both synthetic and real-world benchmarks.
Time series analysis has recently been coupled with Large Language Models (LLMs) to leverage their reasoning and world knowledge capabilities, yet gains remain limited. We attribute this to a fundamental mismatch between existing task formulations and LLM strengths: most settings reduce time series understanding to curve-fitting systems, focusing on low-level prediction while ignoring the semantic, contextual, and reasoning-intensive nature of real-world temporal decision-making.To address these limitations, we introduce TSCognition, a multimodal benchmark for multi-dimensional time series reasoning. It collects real-world time series and textual information from 15 public sources and constructs approximately 41K QA samples around five cognitive reasoning tasks: Decoding, Grounding, Inferring, Extrapolating, and Acting. Building on this, we further propose TSAlign, a unified framework that encodes time series into compact patch-level representations and aligns them with semantic directions in the LLM embedding space via gated residual injection and multivariate fusion.Experiments show that TSAlign outperforms existing LLM, VLM, and time series QA baselines on TSCognition and the publicly available TimerBed benchmark while substantially reducing computational cost.Code is available at: https://github.com/EIT-NLP/CognitiveTSR
Xin Qiu, Junlong Tong, Yao Zhang +3
Institute of Digital Twin, Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo · Zhejiang University · Munich Center for Machine Learning, LMU