Time Series Event Detection (TSED) aims to localize semantically meaningful events in time series data, with critical applications in high-stakes domains. Unlike statistical anomalies, events are often defined by natural-language descriptions with internal temporal-logic structures across multiple physical channels. However, in real-world settings, dense event annotations are expensive to obtain, making purely supervised learning difficult. We introduce Language-guided TSED, a setting where a model is given textual event descriptions and must ground them to intervals in multivariate signals with little or no labeled data. To address this problem, we propose Event Logic Tree (ELT), a knowledge representation framework that converts linguistic descriptions into structured temporal logic over signal primitives. Building on ELT, we present SELA, a neuro-symbolic VLM agent framework that iteratively grounds primitives from signal visualizations and composes them under ELT constraints, producing both event intervals and faithful tree-structured explanations. We further release a real-world benchmark across energy and climate domains with expert knowledge and annotations. Experiments show that SELA improves over supervised fine-tuning and existing zero/few-shot time series reasoning baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An illustration of the Language-guided Time Series Event Detection task.
Operator
Natural Language Description
Formalization
TS Instance
SEQ
“A spike in A is followed by a drop in B .” “A drop in B occurs after a spike in A .”
Table 2: Statistics by Dataset: PT = Pressure Test, CH = Climate Hazard. Lengths are event durations in samples; TS Sample is the series length. Ratio is the percentage of samples containing that class.
Table 4: Comparison of different models and methods on the two KITE datasets. Zs=Zero-shot; Fs=Few-shot In-Context Learning.
Pressure Test ( M -F1)
Climate Hazard ( M -Coverage)
GPT-5
GPT-4.1
Avg.
GPT-5
GPT-4.1
Avg.
Variant
@0.5
@0.9
@0.5
@0.9
F1
F0.5
F1
F0.5
SELA
66.8
60.0
43.9
32.7
50.9
50.7
57.1
52.2
53.9
53.5
Event-logic structure
w/o ELT (Geo. Mean)
41.8 ↓ 25.0
39.1 ↓ 20.9
41.5 ↓ 2.4
32.2 ↓ 0.5
38.7 ↓ 12.2
29.4 ↓ 21.3
34.5 ↓ 22.6
48.5 ↓ 3.7
49.7 ↓ 4.2
40.5 ↓ 13.0
w/o ELT (Arith. Mean)
41.8 ↓ 25.0
39.2 ↓ 20.8
42.9 ↓ 1.0
32.7 ↑ 0.0
39.2 ↓ 11.7
29.6 ↓ 21.1
34.7 ↓ 22.4
47.4 ↓ 4.8
48.6 ↓ 5.3
40.1 ↓ 13.4
Table 5: ELT ablations on Pressure Test and Climate Hazard. Avg. averages the four backbone–metric entries. Bold and underline denote the best and second-best results per column.
Figure 4: Case study from Climate Hazard, showing predictions from different methods against the ground truth, together with the instantiated primitive instances and Event Logic Tree (ELT).
D1: Hierarchical Representation
D2: Semantic Quantification
D3: Topological Elasticity
SAX / ABBA
✗
▲
✗
Logical-Shapelets
▲
▲
✓
Z-Time
▲
▲
✓
Chronicle / STL
✓
▲
✗
Event Logic Tree
✓
✓
✓
Table 6: Comparison of frameworks against our desiderata. ( ✓ : Satisfied; ▲ : Limited / Partially satisfied; ✗ : Not satisfied)
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Zero-shot
Few-shot
Set
Method
Tokens
Cost
Tokens
Cost
PT
SELA (GPT-5)
233.6
0.623
-
-
SELA (GPT-4.1)
125.9
0.189
-
-
Num. (GPT-5)
33.6
0.081
91.9
0.143
Num. (GPT-4.1)
29.2
0.059
92.2
0.185
VL-T. (GPT-5)
5.1
0.033
6.7
0.031
Appendix
Table 7: Average per-sample token usage (K) and inference cost ($) for LLM-based methods. The slightly lower few-shot cost of VL-Time with GPT-5 on Pressure Test results from reduced output-token usage despite the longer input prompt.
Real-world time series are frequently driven by exogenous events and structural shifts, rendering conventional forecasting based solely on historical numerical observations insufficient. While language models can retrieve external news, standard retrieval-augmented approaches struggle with high noise, missing signals, and an inability to reason causally about event impacts. We propose SEER (Self-Evolving Event Reasoning and Retrieval), a closed-loop framework that dynamically optimizes event conditioning for time series forecasting. SEER translates prediction errors into two decoupled feedback mechanisms: (i) a reflective retrieval memory that refines subsequent search queries and filters spurious noise, and (ii) a persistent causal knowledge base that distills transferable domain dynamics. SEER enforces strict chronological boundaries across both event retrieval and reflection, preventing look-ahead bias and data leakage. Across six volatile time-series benchmarks, SEER consistently outperforms state-of-the-art time series foundation models and language model baselines.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning and instruction-following capabilities, making them potentially powerful tools for time-series analysis. However, time series lie outside their native textual modality, raising a fundamental question: how should time series be represented so that LLMs can reason about them effectively? Existing work typically serializes raw numerical sequences or fine-tunes pre-trained LLMs on time-series data. These approaches place the burden of extracting temporal structure directly on the LLM, creating a modality mismatch that often degrades performance on long sequences and introduces substantial computational overhead. In this work, we introduce Time-Series-to-Structured-Program representation (T2SP), a deterministic, training-free method that represents a time series as a structured symbolic program. T2SP decomposes time series into trends, periods, and salient events, expressing them in a program-friendly format aligned with the textual and code-like modalities on which LLMs are natively trained. By shifting temporal-structure extraction from the model to the representation itself, T2SP enables off-the-shelf LLMs to leverage their existing reasoning capabilities for time-series understanding. We evaluate T2SP on three reasoning tasks -- editing, captioning, and question answering -- where it consistently improves performance, reduces reasoning time, and lowers failure rates compared with raw-string representations. Our results demonstrate that T2SP provides an effective interface between time series and LLMs.
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