Are We Winning the Wrong Game? Revisiting Evaluation Practices for Long-Term Time Series Forecasting

We argue that the current practice of evaluating AI/ML time-series forecasting models, predominantly on benchmarks characterized by strong, persistent periodicities and seasonalities, obscures real progress by overlooking the performance of efficient classical methods. We demonstrate that these "standard" datasets often exhibit dominant autocorrelation patterns and seasonal cycles that can be effectively captured by simpler linear or statistical models, rendering complex deep learning architectures frequently no more performant than their classical counterparts for these specific data characteristics, and raising questions as to whether any marginal improvements justify the significant increase in computational overhead and model complexity. We call on the community to (I) retire or substantially augment current benchmarks with datasets exhibiting a wider spectrum of non-stationarities, such as structural breaks, time-varying volatility, and concept drift, and less predictable dynamics drawn from diverse real-world domains, and (II) require every deep learning submission to include robust classical and simple baselines, appropriately chosen for the specific characteristics of the downstream tasks' time series. By doing so, we will help ensure that reported gains reflect genuine scientific methodological advances rather than artifacts of benchmark selection favoring models adept at learning repetitive patterns.

Foundation models have transformed natural language processing and computer vision, and a rapidly growing literature on time-series foundation models (TSFMs) seeks to replicate this success in forecasting. While recent open-source models demonstrate the promise of TSFMs, the field lacks a comprehensive and community-accepted model evaluation framework. We see at least four major issues impeding progress on the development of such a framework. First, existing evaluation frameworks comprise benchmark forecasting tasks derived from often outdated datasets (e.g., M3), many of which lack clear metadata and overlap with the corpora used to pre-train TSFMs. Second, these frameworks evaluate models along a narrowly defined set of benchmark forecasting tasks, such as forecast horizon length or domain, but overlook core statistical properties such as non-stationarity and seasonality. Third, domain-specific models (e.g., XGBoost) are often compared unfairly, as existing frameworks do not enforce a systematic and consistent hyperparameter tuning convention for all models. Fourth, visualization tools for interpreting comparative performance are lacking. To address these issues, we introduce TempusBench, an open-source evaluation framework for TSFMs. TempusBench consists of 1) new datasets which are not included in existing TSFM pretraining corpora, 2) a set of novel benchmark tasks that go beyond existing ones, 3) a model evaluation pipeline with a standardized hyperparameter tuning protocol, and 4) a tensorboard-based visualization interface. We provide access to our code on GitHub: https://github.com/Smlcrm/TempusBench and maintain a live leaderboard at https://smlcrm.com/tempusbench.

Static public benchmarks for time series foundation models (TSFMs) typically have fixed and narrow test distributions. Their repeated reuse encourages benchmark-specific tuning, making reported performance reflect adaptation to the fixed test set rather than genuine forecasting generalization. In addition, a single aggregate score cannot fully characterize model capabilities across distinct temporal structures and input relationships. We propose CaFE (Capability-Focused Evaluation), a refreshable evaluation extension grounded in original benchmark data that enriches static benchmarks with structural diversity and enriches single-score black-box evaluation with multi-dimensional, capability-oriented assessment. CaFE first profiles the original benchmark and defines eight Structural Features (SFs) that characterize its temporal structure. For each SF, it resamples the original data according to its structural support, removes edge-of-distribution samples, and augments the retained samples by varying the SF's salience, producing samples with different structural profiles. After filtering out out-of-distribution samples while preserving diversity, CaFE yields a refreshed evaluation set. TSFMs are then evaluated on this set using both conventional forecast-error metrics and intervention-response metrics, giving each model a per-feature capability profile alongside endpoint accuracy. Experiments on GIFT-Eval and FEV-Mini20 show that CaFE yields stable evaluation results and reveals per-feature strengths and weaknesses that a single aggregate score hides. Moreover, on genuine data filtered by structural condition, models selected by CaFE outperform those chosen by the aggregate leaderboard. CaFE therefore makes model selection conditional on the structural response of interest.