Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in time series modeling tasks, but do they truly understand time series data? While multiple benchmarks have been proposed to answer this fundamental question, most are manually curated and focus on narrow domains or specific skill sets. To address this limitation, we propose scalable methods for creating comprehensive time series reasoning benchmarks that combine the flexibility of templates with the creativity of LLM agents. We first develop TimeSeriesExam, a multiple-choice benchmark using synthetic time series to evaluate LLMs across five core reasoning categories: pattern recognitionnoise understandingsimilarity analysisanomaly detection, and causality. Then, with TimeSeriesExamAgent, we scale our approach by automatically generating benchmarks from real-world datasets spanning healthcare, finance and weather domains. Through multi-dimensional quality evaluation, we demonstrate that our automatically generated benchmarks achieve diversity comparable to manually curated alternatives. However, our experiments reveal that LLM performance remains limited in both abstract time series reasoning and domain-specific applications, highlighting ongoing challenges in enabling effective time series understanding in these models. TimeSeriesExamAgent is available at https://github.com/magwiazda/TimeSeriesExamAgent.
Figures & tables
Title
Multi-domain
Curation
# Samples
Skill type
Fully Automatic
P
R
PS
Time-MQA Kong et al. [2025]
✓
✓
200,000
✓
✓
✗
Time-MMD Liu et al. [2024]
✓
✗
17,113
✓
✗
✗
MT-Bench Chen et al. [2025]
✓
✗
22,000
✓
✓
✗
ECG-QA Oh et al. [2023]
✗
✗
414,348
✓
✓
✓
Context-is-key 1 1 1 The CiK benchmark contains 71 tasks, with the number of samples treated as a configurable hyperparameter. Williams et al. [2024]
✓
✗
71
✓
✓
✗
Table 1: Overview of time-series and multimodal datasets with curation and skill types (P—Prediction, R—Reasoning, PS—Practical skills). Prediction refers to supervised tasks such as forecasting or classification. Reasoning involves higher-level interpretation of time series signals (e.g., trend recognition). Practical skills extend reasoning into domain-specific contexts (e.g., classifying volatility regimes in finance). "+" represents that we can generate any number of samples, but we have already generated 3,000 of them.
Category
Subcategory
Example question
Pattern Recognition
Trend
What is the most likely linear trend coefficient of the given time series?
Cyclic
The given time series has sine wave pattern. How does its amplitude change from the beginning to the end?
Stationarity
Is the given time series likely to be stationary after removing the cycle component?
Regime Switching
Based on the given time series, how many different regimes are there?
Statistical properties
Is the mean stable over time in the given time series?
Random processes
Does the following time series exhibit a mean reversion property?
Table 2: Example template questions for different reasoning tasks. Each subcategory covers a specific aspect of time series understanding, guiding the model to reason about comparative, anomalies, and causal relationships.
Figure 1: ( Left ) Time Series Curation Pipeline: The composition model generates controlled synthetic time series step-by-step. The pipeline enables diversity by combining different components to create numerous synthetic time series with varying properties. ( Right ) Each template evaluates a specific category, and includes a question, list of options, example question and answer pair for in-context learning, and optionally a hint and descriptions of complicated technical terms. Here, GPT-4o showcases its ability to transfer visual understanding and time series concepts into effective reasoning.
Figure 2: TimeSeriesExamAgent architecture. The user provides exam-making instructions and a custom dataset with minimal loading code. Agent outputs question templates – Python functions generated by a generator LLM and filtered through three progressive stages of verification (syntax and output format check, validation by LLM judge, capability-aligned filtering). Arrows denote data flow, red ones show direction for rejected templates.
Figure 3: Given dataset information, TimeSeriesExamAgent generates question templates as Python functions that encode the question logic and support parameterized sampling of arbitrary instances.
Dataset
Model
MIT-BIH
PTB-XL
MIMIC-IV W
YFinance
WeatherBench2
Average
random guess
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
gpt-4o Hurst et al. [2024]
0.416
0.424
0.385
0.586
0.389
0.440
o3-mini OpenAI [2025]
0.442
0.477
0.356
0.555
0.379
0.442
Qwen2.5-VL-Instruct Bai et al. [2025]
0.411
0.490
0.439
0.572
0.368
0.456
Gemma-3-27b-it Team et al. [2025]
0.497
0.517
0.370
0.534
0.232
0.430
Table 3: Comparative performance of six vision–language models across medical (MIT-BIH, PTB-XL, MIMIC-IV Waveform ( MIMIC-IV W )), financial (YFinance), and meteorological (WeatherBench 2) time series datasets. The results highlight dataset-specific strengths; nonetheless, all models achieve less than 55 mean accuracy, underscoring the difficulty of time series reasoning for current VLMs. The evaluation protocol is provided in App. C.3
Mean ± Std
Benchmark Dataset
Embedding
Normalized Levenshtein
ECG-QA
0.207 ± 0.079
0.519 ± 0.157
TimeSeriesExamAgent (ours)
0.301 ± 0.070
0.542 ± 0.039
Table 4: Diversity of questions measured by embedding and normalized Levenshtein distances. Higher values indicate greater variability in phrasing.
Mean Result
Dataset
Specificity
Unambiguity
Domain Relevance
Answerability
Finance Domain
FinMME
8.10
7.59
6.62
6.95
MTBench
6.88
6.11
8.35
7.29
TimeSeriesExamAgent (ours)
8.29
7.24
8.89
8.57
Medicine Domain
Table 5: Combined Quality Evaluation . Scores (1–10) averaged across four criteria. Rows are grouped by their original source tables.
Accuracy
Method
General
Parsable
Random answering
34.9%
34.9%
Base
21.8%
34.6%
Fine-tuned-confounded
39.7%
42.3%
Fine-tuned
47.0%
49.7%
Table 6: Results of VLM fine-tuning on the exams generated by TimeSeriesExamAgent . General : all incorrectly formatted responses are treated as wrong answers. Parsable : only correctly formatted responses are evaluated.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Meta-information Type
Anomaly Detection
Similarity Analysis
Noise Understanding
Pattern Recognition
Causality Analysis
# Questions
129
113
87
371
63
%age questions with 2 time series
31.01
100
14.94
3.77
100
Appendix
Table 7: TimeSeriesExam meta-information breakdown for each category. Each question is associated with a time series of length 128 time steps, and an example time series of length 64 time steps.
Model
Similarity
Pattern
Causality
Noise
Anomaly
Overall
Gemma-3-27B-IT [ 38 ]
0.62
0.59
0.51
0.71
0.51
0.59
GPT-4o [ 17 ]
0.78
0.78
0.61
0.77
0.54
0.73
Qwen2.5-VL-72B [ 3 ]
0.60
0.45
0.49
0.40
0.22
0.44
Gemini-2.5-Pro [ 10 ]
0.78
0.76
0.57
0.65
0.59
0.71
Appendix
Table 8: Accuracy of model on each category of TimeSeriesExam .
Figure 4: The sample average discrimination parameter across rounds shows an upward trend, indicating an improved ability of the questions to differentiate candidates with varying levels of ability.
Figure 5: Dropped Dataset Distribution per round. Dropped category distribution per round generally mirrors the overall category distribution.
Figure 14Figure 15Figure 16
Figure 6: t-SNE analysis of embeddings: (left) text-only vs. (right) text and time series concatenated together.
Hyperparameter
Value
Base model
Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct
GPU setupe
4*NVIDIA RTX A6000 48GB GPU
Frameworks
Hugging Face Accelerate,
DeepSpeed ZeRO 3 stage
Train samples
2000
Warm-up steps
16
Appendix
Table 18
Figure 7: Correlation across all jury-model combinations. We see consistently high ( ≥0.5 ) inter-rater correlation. This confirms that any possible triplets has consistent scores.
Figure 8: Cohen’s Kappa across all jury-model combinations.
Metric
DeepSeek V3.2
Claude 4
Specificity
8.23 ± 0.24
8.08 ± 0.17
Unambiguity
7.55 ± 0.12
7.47 ± 0.28
Domain Relevance
8.69 ± 0.49
8.72 ± 0.22
Answerability
8.69 ± 0.14
8.53 ± 0.08
No Unintended Hints
7.46 ± 0.13
7.37 ± 0.18
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison of Jury scores between DeepSeek V3.2 and Claude 4 generators on the MIT-BIH dataset.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success in general-purpose reasoning. However, they still struggle to understand and reason about time series data, which limits their effectiveness in decision-making scenarios that depend on temporal dynamics. In this paper, we propose Thoth, the first family of mid-trained LLMs with general-purpose time series understanding capabilities. As a pivotal intermediate stage, mid-training achieves task- and domain-agnostic alignment between time series and natural language, for which we construct Book-of-Thoth, a high-quality, time-series-centric mid-training corpus. Book-of-Thoth enables both time-series-to-text and text-to-time-series generation, equipping LLMs with a foundational grasp of temporal patterns. To better evaluate advanced reasoning capabilities, we further present KnoTS, a novel benchmark of knowledge-intensive time series understanding, designed for joint reasoning over temporal patterns and domain knowledge. Extensive experiments demonstrate that mid-training with Book-of-Thoth enables Thoth to significantly outperform its base model and advanced LLMs across a range of time series question answering benchmarks. Moreover, Thoth exhibits superior capabilities when fine-tuned under data scarcity, underscoring the effectiveness of mid-training for time series understanding. Code is available at: https://github.com/thuml/Thoth.
Natural language explanations of time series data are increasingly produced by foundation models in high stakes domains, making factual correctness critical. Evaluating such explanations differs fundamentally from standard natural language generation: correctness requires verifying numerical claims against structured data rather than similarity to reference text. While LLM as a Judge has emerged as a scalable paradigm for text evaluation, its applicability to numerically grounded time series explanations remains unstudied. We introduce TSQueryBench, a controlled synthetic benchmark of 500 time series instances across 10 query types, each paired with correct, partially correct, and incorrect explanations. We evaluate six large language models across four tasks: explanation generation, relative ranking, independent scoring, and multi anomaly detection. Our central finding is a consistent generation evaluation asymmetry: models that fail to generate numerically correct explanations nonetheless reliably identify or score correct ones. These results show that rubric guided LLM evaluation is substantially more reliable than generation for time series reasoning, supporting LLM judges as scalable evaluators in numerically grounded settings. Code and data: https://github.com/Prxxthxm/TSQueryBench/
Time series data inform critical decisions across many real-world domains. While large language model (LLM) agents can analyze data through natural language and tools, it remains unclear whether they can conduct reliable time series analysis across multi-turn conversations. Existing benchmarks focus on single-step tasks such as forecasting and anomaly detection, overlooking practical workflows where user goals evolve, agents must build on prior analyses, and conclusions emerge from accumulated evidence. In this work, we introduce TimeSage-MT, a multi-turn benchmark for agentic time series reasoning with 240 tasks and 2,680 dialogue turns across 8 real-world domains, spanning basic exploration to decision-oriented analysis. TimeSage-MT is built through a reproducible pipeline that converts real-world time series data into multi-turn conversations with verifiable answers. It provides a unified evaluation protocol and public leaderboard for comparing time series agentic systems. To demonstrate the benchmark's utility, we evaluate frontier LLMs alongside TimeSage, a novel structured agent equipped with a comprehensive time series skill library. The results show sharp performance drops on decision-oriented tasks, driven by failures in memory, uncertainty handling, and domain-based decision making. TimeSage-MT exposes critical gaps in current agentic reasoning and provides a rigorous foundation for future development.
Yaxuan Kong, Qingren Yao, Yuqi Nie +7
University of Oxford · VulpiVox Intelligence · Eindhoven University of Technology +3