LLM Agents for Time-Series: A Survey
Organizations: Northwestern University · Datadog AI Research · Nokia
Abstract
LLM-based agents are increasingly being developed for time-series problems, but their design choices vary substantially across task settings. This survey adopts a problem-driven taxonomy that organizes these systems by the time-series problems they address rather than by isolated technical components. We group existing systems into four categories: forecasting and reasoning, augmentation and synthesis, anomaly detection and diagnosis, and decision support. Within each category, we examine how task requirements shape agent architecture, tool use, and memory design. We further summarize representative datasets and environments, and compare reported model performance under shared or closely related settings. Overall, this survey offers a task-oriented guide to designing LLM-based agents for time-series problems and identifies open gaps for future work.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Survey | Year | TS-specific | LLM Agents | Forecasting & Reasoning | Augmentation & Synthesis | Anomaly Detection & Diagnosis | Decision Support | Taxonomy | Design Guidance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jiang et al. (2024) | 2024 | Yes | No | Method-driven | Limited | ||||
| Zhang et al. (2024b) | 2024 | Yes | No | Method-driven | Limited | ||||
| Chang et al. (2026) | 2026 | Yes | Partial | Topology-driven | Limited | ||||
| Zhang et al. (2025c) | 2025 | Yes | Partial | Capability-driven | Limited | ||||
| Ours | 2026 | Yes | Yes | Problem-driven | Yes |
| Failure mode | Where it appears | Related work | Design choice | Implementation check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error propagation across workflow stages | Forecasting and reasoning pipelines that pass outputs through diagnosis, model selection, context analysis, prediction, and validation | TimeSeriesScientist Zhao et al. (2025) ; CLIMATEAGENT Kim et al. (2025) ; CastFlow Pan et al. (2026) | Keep stage outputs explicit. Log retrieved evidence, tool calls, predictions, and validation results so later stages do not inherit hidden errors | Can a reader inspect the artifact used by the next stage? |
| Numerical or domain reasoning errors | Tasks that require temporal structure, metadata, domain conventions, or quantitative operations | TS-Agent Liu et al. (2025) ; TS-Reasoner Ye et al. (2024b) ; CLIMATEAGENT Kim et al. (2025) | Let the LLM plan and explain, but move calculation and domain-specific parsing into tools, operators, or specialist agents | Can the numerical claim be rerun outside the LLM? |
| Semantic drift in generated data | Augmentation and synthesis, where plausible-looking outputs can break trend, periodicity, local shape, correlation, or domain constraints | DCATS Yeh et al. (2025) ; MERIT Zhou et al. (2025) ; BRIDGE Li et al. (2025) | Generate from target context and verify temporal properties before the synthetic data enters training or evaluation | Do checks cover trend, seasonality, local shape, and correlation rather than textual plausibility alone? |
| Brittle LLM-as-judge validation | Validation settings where a pretrained judge can approve an output without task evidence or executable checks | DCATS Yeh et al. (2025) ; TS-Reasoner Ye et al. (2024b) | Treat LLM critique as one signal. Require task metrics, execution feedback, or downstream validation before accepting an output | Would the output be rejected if another LLM approved it but the executable check failed? |
| Contamination during online updates | Streaming anomaly detection, where transient anomalies can be absorbed as the new normal | CALM Devireddy and Huang (2025) | Separate alarm decisions from update decisions; gate which observations can enter memory or fine-tuning data | Can short-lived anomalies be kept out of the update set? |
| Unsafe or infeasible actions in closed-loop control | Traffic and grid-control agents that issue executable actions under operational constraints | LLMLight Lai et al. (2025) ; Grid-Agent Zhang et al. (2025d) ; GridMind Jin et al. (2025) | Check proposed actions with a simulator, solver, feasibility test, or safety validator before execution | Does every action pass an environment or constraint check first? |
| Method | Year | Source | Problem Type | Architecture | Tools | Memory |
| TimeSeriesScientist Zhao et al. (2025) | 2025 | arXiv | Forecasting | Multi (Cooperative) | Stat./ML Models | Evidence Logs |
| TimeXL Jiang et al. (2025) | 2025 | NeurIPS | Forecasting | Multi (Cooperative) | None | Evidence Logs, Pattern Library |
| TimeCAP Lee et al. (2025) | 2025 | AAAI | Forecasting | Multi (Cooperative) | Data Processing Tools | Pattern Library |
| NewsTSForecasting Zhang et al. (2025e) | 2025 | arXiv | Forecasting | Multi (Competitive) | Search & Retrieval APIs | Evidence Logs, Analysis Strategies |
| TRACE Chen and Xie (2025) | 2025 | IEEE TAI | Forecasting | Multi (Competitive) | None | Evidence Logs |
| FLAIRR-TS Jalori et al. (2025) | 2025 | EMNLP Findings | Forecasting | Multi (Cooperative) | None | Evidence Logs, Analysis Strategies |
| Task Family | Architecture | Tools | Memory |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forecasting & Reasoning ( ) | Single: 2 (14.3%); Multi (Cooperative): 8 (57.1%); Multi (Competitive): 3 (21.4%); Multi (Mixed): 1 (7.1%) | Database APIs: 3 (21.4%); Search & Retrieval APIs: 2 (14.3%); Data Processing Tools: 8 (57.1%); Stat./ML Models: 5 (35.7%); Simulators, Solvers & Optimizers: 1 (7.1%); None: 4 (28.6%) | Evidence Logs: 10 (71.4%); Pattern Library: 6 (42.9%); Analysis Strategies: 3 (21.4%); None: 0 (0%) |
| Augmentation & Synthesis ( ) | Single: 1 (16.7%); Multi (Cooperative): 4 (66.7%); Multi (Competitive): 0 (0%); Multi (Mixed): 1 (16.7%) | Database APIs: 1 (16.7%); Search & Retrieval APIs: 1 (16.7%); Data Processing Tools: 3 (50.0%); Stat./ML Models: 4 (66.7%); Simulators, Solvers & Optimizers: 0 (0%); None: 1 (16.7%) | Evidence Logs: 1 (16.7%); Pattern Library: 1 (16.7%); Analysis Strategies: 0 (0%); None: 4 (66.7%) |
| Anomaly Detection & Diagnosis ( ) | Single: 3 (37.5%); Multi (Cooperative): 4 (50.0%); Multi (Competitive): 0 (0%); Multi (Mixed): 1 (12.5%) | Database APIs: 2 (25.0%); Search & Retrieval APIs: 1 (12.5%); Data Processing Tools: 8 (100%); Stat./ML Models: 7 (87.5%); Simulators, Solvers & Optimizers: 0 (0%); None: 0 (0%) | Evidence Logs: 5 (62.5%); Pattern Library: 1 (12.5%); Analysis Strategies: 2 (25.0%); None: 2 (25.0%) |
| Decision Support ( ) | Single: 6 (31.6%); Multi (Cooperative): 8 (42.1%); Multi (Competitive): 2 (10.5%); Multi (Mixed): 3 (15.8%) | Database APIs: 3 (15.8%); Search & Retrieval APIs: 5 (26.3%); Data Processing Tools: 9 (47.4%); Stat./ML Models: 5 (26.3%); Simulators, Solvers & Optimizers: 9 (47.4%); None: 1 (5.3%) | Evidence Logs: 10 (52.6%); Pattern Library: 5 (26.3%); Analysis Strategies: 4 (21.1%); None: 4 (21.1%) |
| Resource | Category | Problem Type | Interactive | Timesteps | Series | Latest Release |
| Forecasting | ||||||
| M4 Makridakis et al. (2018) | Benchmark | Forecasting | No | Up to 10k | 100k | 2018 |
| M5 Makridakis et al. (2022) | Benchmark | Forecasting | No | 1.9k | 42k | 2020 |
| MIRAI Ye et al. (2024a) | Benchmark | Forecasting | No | 1M | 59k | 2025 |
| FutureX Zeng et al. (2025) | Benchmark | Forecasting | No | Live/Daily | 195 sources | 2025 |
| Monash TSF Godahewa et al. (2021) | Dataset Repo | Multi-Domain Forecasting | No | Up to 527k | Up to 145k | 2021 |
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Method | Score |
| ETTh1 forecasting Zhou et al. (2021) | ||||
| Forecasting | ETTh1 | MAE | FLAIRR-TS Jalori et al. (2025) | 0.101 |
| Forecasting | ETTh1 | MAE | LSTP Liu et al. (2024a) | 0.150 |
| Forecasting | ETTh1 | MAE | DLinear Zeng et al. (2023) | 0.390 |
| Forecasting | ETTh1 | MAE | Agentic-RAG (Llama3-8B) Ravuru et al. (2024) | 0.396 |
| Forecasting | ETTh1 | MAE | GPT4TS Zhou et al. (2023) | 0.397 |
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Method | Score |
| Yahoo anomaly detection Laptev (2015) | ||||
| Anomaly detection | Yahoo | F1 | MERIT (Llama3.1-8B) Zhou et al. (2025) | 0.905 |
| Anomaly detection | Yahoo | F1 | TimesURL Liu and Chen (2024) | 0.892 |
| Anomaly detection | Yahoo | F1 | TS2Vec Yue et al. (2022) | 0.885 |
| Anomaly detection | Yahoo | F1 | SR Ren et al. (2019) | 0.879 |
| Anomaly detection | Yahoo | F1 | DONUT Xu et al. (2018) | 0.873 |