Seeking SOTA: Time-Series Forecasting Must Adopt Taxonomy-Specific Evaluation to Dispel Illusory Gains
Organizations: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto · Dept. of Mathematics, University of Oxford · Vector Institute · Dept. of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Australia ·
Abstract
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.
Figures & tables
| Model (Year) | ETTh1 | ETTh2 | ETTm1 | ETTm2 | ||||||||||||
| 96 | 192 | 336 | 720 | 96 | 192 | 336 | 720 | 96 | 192 | 336 | 720 | 96 | 192 | 336 | 720 | |
| Informer ( 2021 ) | 0.865 | 1.008 | 1.107 | 1.181 | 3.755 | 5.602 | 4.721 | 3.647 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Autoformer ( 2021 ) | 0.449 | 0.500 | 0.521 | 0.514 | 0.346 | 0.456 | 0.482 | 0.515 | 0.505 | 0.553 | 0.621 | 0.671 | 0.255 | 0.281 | 0.339 | 0.433 |
| Stationary ( 2022b ) | 0.513 | 0.534 | 0.588 | 0.643 | 0.476 | 0.512 | 0.552 | 0.562 | 0.386 | 0.459 | 0.495 | 0.585 | 0.192 | 0.280 | 0.334 | 0.417 |
| FEDformer ( 2022 ) | 0.395 | 0.469 | 0.530 | 0.598 | 0.358 | 0.429 | 0.496 | 0.463 | 0.379 | 0.426 | 0.445 | 0.543 | 0.203 | 0.269 | 0.325 | 0.421 |
| SCINet ( 2022a ) | 0.654 | 0.719 | 0.778 | 0.836 | 0.707 | 0.860 | 1.000 | 1.249 | 0.418 | 0.439 | 0.490 | 0.595 | 0.286 | 0.399 | 0.637 | 0.960 |
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Running Times | Cricket (T20I) | Soccer (CF) | Chess | Weighted | |||||
| Athlete | 100m (s) | 200m (s) | 10K (m:s) | Bat. Avg. | Bowl. Avg. | Goals/G | Assists/G | Elo | Avg. |
| Usain Bolt (JAM) | 9.58 (100%) | 19.19 (100%) | 38:00 (85%) | 5 (10%) | 150 (5%) | 0.10 (50%) | 0.05 (40%) | 800 (10%) | 0.93 |
| Joshua Cheptegei (UGA) | 11.50 (80%) | 23.00 (75%) | 26:24 (100%) | 3 (5%) | 180 (2%) | 0.02 (20%) | 0.01 (15%) | 700 (5%) | 0.92 |
| Virat Kohli (IND) | 11.80 (75%) | 24.00 (70%) | 45:00 (70%) | 51.75 (99.9%) | 90.00 (20%) | 0.05 (40%) | 0.02 (30%) | 1100 (30%) | 0.91 |
| Rashid Khan (AFG) | 12.50 (65%) | 25.50 (60%) | 50:00 (60%) | 12.96 (40%) | 14.50 (99.9%) | 0.01 (15%) | 0.01 (10%) | 900 (15%) | 0.90 |
| Lionel Messi (ARG) | 11.20 (85%) | 23.50 (70%) | 42:00 (78%) | 2 (2%) | 200 (1%) | 0.79 (100%) | 0.37 (100%) | 1000 (20%) | 0.94 |
| Metric | Formula |
| Mean Squared Error (MSE) | |
| Mean Absolute Error (MAE) | |
| Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) | |
| Symmetric Mean Absolute Percentage Error (sMAPE) | |
| Mean Absolute Scaled Error (MASE) | |
| Overall Weighted Average (OWA) |
| Metric | Elicited Functional | Scale Invariant | Sensitivity to Extreme Errors | Reported Form / Units | Built-in Baseline Normalization | Lead-time Aware |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSE | cond. mean | ✗ | Quadratic | squared units | ✗ | ✗ |
| MAE | cond. median | ✗ | Linear | original units | ✗ | ✗ |
| MAPE | -weighted median | ✓ | Linear; -weighted | percentage | ✗ | ✗ |
| sMAPE | nonstandard minimizer | ✓ | Bounded; saturates at | bounded percentage | ✗ | ✗ |
| MASE | cond. median (fixed scale) | ✓ | Linear (scaled) | ratio to in-sample naïve scale | ✓ | ✗ |
| OWA | nonstandard (composite) | ✓ | Component-dependent | index (Naïve2 ) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Non- Stationarities | Statistical Variants | Example Problem Domains | Statistical Methodologies (e.g., Naive Baselines) |
| Trend | Mean | Global temperature rise | Detrending and differencing (ARIMA, ETS with trend) |
| Seasonal | Mean/Covariance | Quarterly sales, electricity demand | Seasonal adjustment (SARIMA, STL decomposition) |
| Structural Breaks | Mean/Variance | Economic shocks, policy changes | Regime-switching models (Markov Switching AR, piecewise models) |
| Volatility | Variance | Financial returns | Time-varying volatility models (GARCH, EGARCH) |
| Distributional | Distribution shape | Concept evolution in user behavior | Non-parametric/adaptive modeling (kernel density, quantile regression) |
| Concept Drift | Data relationships | User-item interaction in streaming | Online/continual learning (dynamic Bayesian models, online forests) |
| Datasets | ETTh1 & ETTh2 | ETTm1 &ETTm2 | ECL | Weather | Traffic |
| Channels | 7 | 7 | 322 | 21 | 862 |
| Frequency | hourly | 15-min | hourly | hourly | hourly |
| Timesteps | 17,420 | 69,680 | 26,304 | 52,704 | 17,544 |
| Train/Val/Test Split | 12/4/4 months | 12/4/4 months | 15/3/4 months | 28/10/10 months | 7:1: |
| Feature | Unit | Periodicity (ACF Peak) | |
| Train | Test | ||
| Temperature ( ) | °C | 141 | 140 |
| Potential Temperature ( ) | K | 141 | 140 |
| Relative Humidity (RH) | % | 142 | 141 |
| Saturation Vapor Pressure (VP ) | mbar | 141 | 140 |
| Vapor Pressure Deficit (VP ) | mbar | 141 | 142 |
| Reviewer 1 | Reviewer 2 | Reviewer 3 | Area Chair | Mean (reviewers) | |
| Rating | 6 (Weak Accept) | 7 (Accept) | 4 (Borderline Reject) | 4 (Borderline Reject) | 5.67 |
| Agreement | 4: agree | 4: agree | 3: neither | 3: neither | — |
| Confidence | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3.33 |
| Support | 4 (excellent) | 3 (good) | 2 (fair) | — | 3.00 |
| Significance | 2 (fair) | 3 (good) | 2 (fair) | — | 2.33 |
| Presentation | 3 (good) | 3 (good) | 1 (poor) | — | 2.33 |
Time Series Forecasting
Time series forecasting predicts future values from ordered observations using statistical, neural, and probabilistic models to support decisions under uncertainty.
See all 839 papers