cs.LGOct 1, 2026

Least Squares for Time Series Forecasting

Authors: Weiu-qiou Ciang, Yuzhou Hong, Sherry Chen

Abstract

A time-series forecast is scored on a future value of the series. A representation loss that regresses the next latent, as in LeNEPA, is a different least-squares problem on the same bottleneck. We write both programs down. The forecast program minimizes the error of a decoded latent on the coordinate that will be reported. For a scalar target and a linear decoder, every latent rank of at least one matches ordinary least squares, and an isotropy constraint is only a rescaling: after the decoder is refit, the forecast does not move. The other program fits the whole next vector at a fixed rank, then freezes the encoder and attaches a head. On a four-dimensional series whose last three coordinates are the same autoregression, that rank-1 fit puts mass 0.99980.9998 on the repeated coordinate and forecasts the remaining signal at the marginal variance 2.7942.794. The forecast program puts mass 11 on the signal and matches the innovation variance 0.9920.992. Rank 22 gives the vector fit a second direction, and the two programs agree. Iterating the fitted one-step coefficient 0.8030.803 raises the open-loop error from 0.9920.992 at one step to 2.7002.700 at eight steps.

Figures & tables

Explore similar work

May 8, 2026

Don't Learn the Shape: Forecasting Periodic Time Series by Rank-1 Decomposition

How few parameters do we really need to forecast a periodic time series? An hourly electricity series, reshaped as a 24-row matrix with one column per day, is approximately rank-1: a daily shape modulated by a daily level (median centered rank-1 energy 0.82 on GIFT-Eval). Should we learn the shape? Smoothing, shrinkage, and low-rank fits all seem like obvious upgrades over the simple average of the last K=2 cycles. On all 97 GIFT-Eval configurations, we tested 8 such alternatives (e.g., Fourier, EWMA, James-Stein, rank-r SVD): none significantly beats the frozen baseline under Holm correction; two are significantly worse. The resulting method, FLAIR, is (a) Effective: matches PatchTST on aggregate GIFT-Eval (relMASE 0.838 vs 0.849); (b) Compact: 28 scalars for hourly, 57 for weekly; (c) Fast: 22 minutes on one CPU core of a MacBook Pro; (d) Closed-form & Hands-Off: one SVD per period candidate, GCV-averaged Ridge, no GPU, no pre-training, no per-task tuning. In the high-rank-1, many-cycle regime, extra flexibility is estimation noise.
Oct 8, 2026

SteerCast: Retrieval-Based Latent Steering for Decoder-Only Time Series Forecasting

Time series forecasting aims to predict future values from historical observations and auxiliary features. We propose SteerCast, a retrieval-based latent steering method that improves decoder-only forecaster at inference time, without updating its parameters. SteerCast constructs a database from the training set by storing a representation of each history window together with a steering vector computed in the forecaster's latent space, defined as the difference between representations induced by the ground-truth continuation and by the model's own prediction. At test time, SteerCast retrieves nearest neighbors for a query history, aggregates their steering vectors, and injects the resulting signal into the forecaster's hidden states at every step of autoregressive generation, guiding predictions toward trajectories consistent with similar training cases. Experiments across diverse multivariate benchmarks and multiple horizons show that SteerCast consistently improves forecasting accuracy over the fine-tuned backbone and retrieval-based baselines, while requiring no additional training beyond the original fine-tuning and using only the training set as a retrieval corpus.
Oct 12, 2026

ChronoScribe: Semantic-Numerical Specialization for Instruction-Driven Time Series Forecasting

Recent advances in instruction-driven time series forecasting highlight a fundamental tension: systems must simultaneously master natural-language instruction following and precise numerical prediction. Current approaches often force a compromise. Large language models (LLMs) can interpret unstructured requests but may be inaccurate when asked to produce forecast values directly, whereas time series foundation models (TSFMs) provide numerical forecasts but typically require structured inputs specifying the target series, context window, and horizon. We present ChronoScribe, which applies semantic-numerical specialization to this workflow. A LoRA-adapted LLM proposes an execution path and context length; deterministic rules resolve the executable configuration. On the specialist path, a frozen TSFM produces quantile trajectories for the task-specified horizon. Deterministic trajectory summaries condition the response, while the LLM neither generates nor revises predicted values. We evaluate a Qwen3.5-9B--Chronos-2 implementation across 23 evaluation dimensions and 30 public datasets against eleven proprietary direct LLMs and three open TSFMs. ChronoScribe has the lowest error on sMAPE, MASE, WAPE, RMSE, and MAE among all evaluated systems, including fixed-context controls. Across these metrics, even the lowest direct-LLM error remains 2.0--2.7 times the corresponding ChronoScribe error. At the system level, ChronoScribe achieves a Task-Level Score (TLS) of 65.5, 10.6 points above the strongest direct-LLM baseline. The results support ChronoScribe's division of labor, in which the LLM handles interpretation, configuration, and communication while the TSFM handles numerical forecasting.