Event sequences are chains of random events, each described by heterogeneous (numerical and categorical) features. The problem of event sequence forecasting occurs in finance, healthcare, business process intelligence, and other fields. In this work, we study multi-horizon forecasting of event sequences as a conditional generative modeling problem. We evaluate forecasts not only for prediction accuracy, but also for distributional realism. To this end, we present a benchmark comprising metrics for both quality aspects, strong statistical baselines, recent models adapted from adjacent fields, and curated real-world datasets. Careful evaluation reveals that no method excels at both accuracy and realism, highlighting a fundamental trade-off between the two. Finally, we introduce Wasserstein BaryBooster, an algorithm that aggregates samples from a realism-strong diffusion model into a state-of-the-art predictor, demonstrating that distributional realism can be converted into prediction accuracy. Code is available at https://github.com/xaosina/event-sequence-forecasting.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A toy event sequence. After a bet on black at roulette, the evening follows one of two realistic chains of transactions: the person either lost (51%) or won (49%). The prediction that minimizes MSE and maximizes per-event accuracy takes the categories of the more likely chain and averages the amounts, pairing cheap categories with large sums (e.g., an $18 bus ride). It scores best on predictive metrics, yet matches neither chain. On the other hand, each possible outcome is realistic, but its expected MSE is about twice as large.
Method
Features
Seq.
Forecasting
Diffusion
CDiff ( Zeng et al., 2024 )
mixed ✓
✓
✓
data
TabSyn ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
mixed ✓
✘
✘
latent
TabDiff ( Shi et al., 2025 )
mixed ✓
✘
✘
data
Add and Thin ( Lüdke et al., 2023 )
none ✘
✓
✓
data
PSDiff ( Lüdke et al., 2025 )
num ✘
✓
✓
data
EdiTPP ( Lüdke et al., 2026 )
none ✘
✓
✓
data
Table 1: Comparison of related generative models. “Features” indicates the supported feature type: “none” (time only), “cat” (a single event type, as in marked TPP, MTPP), “num” (numerical features only, as in spatio-temporal TPP, STPP), or “mixed” (both numerical and categorical). “Seq.” indicates whether the method natively handles sequential (as opposed to single-row tabular) data. “Forecasting” indicates whether the method allows history-conditional generation. “Diffusion” indicates whether the method is a latent diffusion model, a data-space diffusion model, or non-diffusion (ND). Methods applicable to event sequence forecasting are highlighted.
Dataset
# seq. (train / test)
avg. seq. len.
# num. (incl. time)
# cat.
time span
Gender
11K / 2.8K
404.31±292.48
2
2
15 months
Age
24K / 6K
881.00±124.75
2
2
2 years
Alphabattle
100K / 35K
366.91±212.58
2
4
2 years
Table 2: Dataset statistics. Number of sequences in each split, average sequence length, number of categorical and numerical features describing each event, and overall time span.
Method
TMS ↑
cDFS ↑
Alphabattle
Gender
Age
Alphabattle
Gender
Age
Hist.
0.382
0.221
0.366
0.544
0.476
0.234
Mode
0.203
0.047
0.263
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rep.
0.440
0.361
0.454
0.009
0.050
0.065
AR
0.286
0.188
0.354
0.000
0.002
0.000
MT
0.286
0.153
0.360
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 3: TMS and cDFS at horizon L=32 . Within the baseline group, we highlight the best , the second best , and the third best methods. BaryBoosted methods are highlighted when they would rank first/second/third after being added to the pool. Red cells mark cDFS <0.07 (easily detected).
Figure 2: Trade-off between TMS and cDFS for each dataset on horizon L=32 . The solid line shows the Pareto front over baseline methods.
Method
R1 (amount) ↑
R1 (time) ↑
F1 (mcc) ↑
Alphabattle
Gender
Age
Alphabattle
Gender
Age
Alphabattle
Gender
Age
LDM
0.479
0.180
0.216
0.148
0.144
0.074
0.400
0.364
0.323
LDM-WB (ours)
0.583
0.334
0.438
0.337
0.331
0.331
0.459
0.448
0.371
Table 4: BaryBoosting improves prediction metrics beyond the optimized TMS ( L=32 ; excerpt of Table 9 ).
Appendix figures & tables21 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
GRU 128-1L
GRU 512-1L
GRU 512-2L (default)
GRU 1024-3L
Tr. 128-1L
Tr. 512-1L
Tr. 512-2L
Tr. 1024-3L
GT
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.996
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Hist.
0.198
0.234
0.234
0.225
0.727
0.756
0.727
0.831
Mode
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rep.
0.031
0.037
0.065
0.705
0.008
0.003
0.002
0.334
AR
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.007
MT
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.069
Appendix
Table 5: Age : cDFS under eight discriminator configurations, horizon L=32 . Spearman ρ compares the model ranking under each configuration with the ranking under GRU-512-2L.
Method
GRU 128-1L
GRU 512-1L
GRU 512-2L (default)
GRU 1024-3L
Tr. 128-1L
Tr. 512-1L
Tr. 512-2L
Tr. 1024-3L
GT
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Hist.
0.427
0.493
0.477
0.470
0.612
0.673
0.535
0.871
Mode
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rep.
0.177
0.067
0.050
0.054
0.007
0.008
0.001
0.197
AR
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
MT
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Appendix
Table 6: Gender : cDFS under eight discriminator configurations, horizon L=32 . Spearman ρ compares the model ranking under each configuration with the ranking under GRU-512-2L.
Method
GRU 128-1L
GRU 512-1L
GRU 512-2L (default)
GRU 1024-3L
Tr. 128-1L
Tr. 512-1L
Tr. 512-2L
Tr. 1024-3L
GT
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Hist.
0.573
0.556
0.544
0.550
0.338
0.313
0.147
0.874
Mode
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rep.
0.015
0.011
0.009
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.494
AR
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
MT
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Appendix
Table 7: Alphabattle : cDFS under eight discriminator configurations, horizon L=32 . Spearman ρ compares the model ranking under each configuration with the ranking under GRU-512-2L.
cDFS ↑
Shape ↑
Trend ↑
Method
Age
Gender
Alph.
Age
Gender
Alph.
Age
Gender
Alph.
Hist.
0.234
0.476
0.544
0.987
0.962
0.984
0.961
0.785
0.949
Mode
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.792
0.806
0.801
0.402
0.700
0.567
Rep.
0.065
0.050
0.009
0.994
0.978
0.991
0.973
0.879
0.955
AR
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.852
0.851
0.840
0.538
0.642
0.620
MT
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.853
0.811
0.855
0.401
0.272
0.712
Appendix
Table 8: Shape and Trend scores alongside cDFS at horizon L=32 on the three transaction datasets. Bold marks cDFS >0.07 and the corresponding Shape and Trend cells.
Figure 3: Relationship between cDFS and the auxiliary fidelity scores — Shape score (left) and Trend score (right) — across all three datasets pooled. Horizon L=32 . Higher is better on both axes. The figure shows that high Shape and Trend scores do not, by themselves, imply a high cDFS: many baselines achieve competitive Shape or Trend values while collapsing along the cDFS axis, suggesting that cDFS is a more holistic criterion.
Method
TMS ↑
R1 (amount) ↑
R1 (time) ↑
F1 (mcc) ↑
Alphabattle
Gender
Age
Alphabattle
Gender
Age
Alphabattle
Gender
Age
Alphabattle
Gender
Age
Hist.
0.382
0.221
0.366
0.498
0.117
0.245
-0.049
-0.325
-0.179
0.424
0.397
0.331
Mode
0.203
0.047
0.263
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.081
0.088
0.052
Rep.
0.440
0.361
0.454
0.524
0.182
0.236
0.147
0.137
0.128
0.444
0.425
0.374
AR
0.286
0.188
0.354
0.043
-0.018
0.082
0.064
0.096
0.183
0.287
0.324
0.208
MT
0.286
0.153
0.360
-0.000
0.016
0.020
-0.042
-0.043
0.185
0.369
0.343
0.270
Appendix
Table 9: TMS, R1 (amount), R1 (time), F1 (mcc) at horizon L=32 . Across all shown methods, the best is in bold , the second best is underlined and the third best is dash-underlined .
Figure 4: Relationship between TMS and matched per-feature submetrics at horizon L=32 : matched R1 for amount (left), matched R1 for time (middle), and matched F1 for MCC (right). Higher is better on both axes. Across all three views, TMS grows consistently with each matched submetric.
Figure 5: Trade-off between TMS and cDFS for each dataset on horizon L=4 . The solid line shows the Pareto front over baseline methods.
Figure 6: Trade-off between TMS and cDFS for each dataset on horizon L=16 . The solid line shows the Pareto front over baseline methods.
Figure 7: Trade-off between TMS and cDFS for each dataset on horizon L=64 . The solid line shows the Pareto front over baseline methods.
Method
TMS ↑
cDFS ↑
3-seed
reported
3-seed
reported
LDM
0.430 ± 0.002
0.426
0.983 ± 0.006
1.000
DEF
0.505 ± 0.004
0.508
0.001 ± 0.000
0.000
LDM-WB
0.523 ± 0.001
0.522
0.202 ± 0.005
0.224
Appendix
Table 10: Age, horizon L=32 : 3-seed mean ± std vs. reported in main results (single reported values shown without uncertainty). Higher is better. Within each column, the best is in bold , second best is underlined
Figure 8: Generated continuations for one Age test client at horizon L=32 . Each event is a stem at its timestamp; height is the log-transformed amount and color encodes the category (the nine most frequent categories receive their own color, the rest share grey). The vertical rule separates the observed history, identical across all panels, from the 32 generated events. Original is the ground-truth continuation.
Method
TMS ↑
cDFS ↑
ADiff4TPP
0.402
0.997
LDM
0.426
1.000
ADiff4TPP-WB
0.512
0.108
LDM-WB
0.522
0.224
Appendix
Table 11: ADiff4TPP and LDM at horizon L=32 on Age dataset, with and without Wasserstein BaryBooster.
Age
Gender
Alphabattle
N
TMS ↑
cDFS ↑
TMS ↑
cDFS ↑
TMS ↑
cDFS ↑
1
0.428
0.966
0.319
0.874
0.404
0.855
5
0.499
0.257
0.407
0.137
0.472
0.133
10
0.510
0.271
0.425
0.300
0.485
0.210
15
0.517
0.229
0.430
0.271
0.491
0.188
30
0.522
0.224
0.436
0.258
0.495
0.177
Appendix
Table 12: Wasserstein BaryBooster on LDM as a function of the sample size N at horizon L=32 ; N=1 is the base LDM without boosting.
Figure 9: TMS change at horizon L=32 after applying Wasserstein BaryBooster to different base models. The largest improvement is observed for diffusion-based models, while DEF shows no visible gain and the remaining methods improve only slightly.
Aspect
ADiff4TPP [ Mukherjee et al., 2026 ]
Our LDM
Diffusion formulation
Flow matching
EDM
Backbone
DiT
DiT
Data–latent mapping
β -VAE
β -VAE
Appendix
Table 13: High-level comparison between ADiff4TPP and our latent diffusion model (LDM).
Figure 10: Schematic illustration of the considered methods.
Dataset
Model
Train (min)
Inference (min)
Memory (GB)
Age
LDM
525.6
1.2
1.71
Age
DDM
776.9
8.0
1.62
Age
DEF
281.0
0.13
71.12
Age
MT
111.9
0.08
3.94
Age
AR
83.1
2.4
7.43
Age
LDM-WB ( N=30 )
–
52.4
1.71
Appendix
Table 14: Runtime and memory summary for Age, Gender, and Alphabattle at horizon L=64 .
Dataset
Horizon
Total (s)
Sampling
Medoid
Matching
Aggregation
Age
32
310.0
264.9 (85%)
17.8
26.2
0.3
Gender
32
307.2
261.8 (85%)
18.0
26.4
0.3
Alphabattle
32
349.9
301.6 (86%)
18.2
29.0
0.3
Age
64
788.7
484.8 (61%)
108.0
194.8
0.2
Gender
64
786.3
480.6 (61%)
107.5
197.3
0.2
Alphabattle
64
861.5
547.2 (64%)
105.6
207.7
0.3
Appendix
Table 15: Decomposition of the BaryBooster wall time into base-model sampling and the stages of the aggregation algorithm. Seconds per 10 test batches, N=30 .
Dataset
Reported by
# seq.
Mean len.
Reason
Our benchmark (Table 2 )
Gender
ours
14k (11k/2.8k)
404
we use
Age
ours
30k (24k/6k)
881
we use
Alphabattle
ours (Alfa-Bank, official test split)
135k (100k/35k)
367
we use
Generative-modeling papers for event sequences
Retweet
[ Xue et al., 2024 , Karpukhin et al., 2026 , Zeng et al., 2024 , Mukherjee et al., 2026 ]
24k
41–56
L
Appendix
Table 16: Public event-sequence datasets considered and reasons for exclusion.
Method
TMS ↑
cDFS ↑
Age
Retweet
Amazon
Age
Retweet
Amazon
Hist.
0.366
0.391
0.343
0.234
0.035
0.082
Mode
0.263
0.156
0.036
0.000
0.009
0.002
Rep.
0.454
0.435
0.415
0.065
0.053
0.070
AR
0.354
0.530
0.151
0.000
0.041
0.110
MT
0.360
0.604
0.196
0.000
0.441
0.140
Appendix
Table 17: TMS and cDFS at horizon L=32 on the two TPP corpora, with Age for reference. Within each column: best , second , third .
Operators of service-based systems act on forecasts of how a running execution will continue, and such a forecast is actionable only if its reliability is known. Mainstream deep-learning models for this task are discriminative and deterministic: they emit a single next activity and a single remaining-time estimate, without a distribution to reason over. We instead cast the problem as generative sequence modelling with marked temporal point processes, which define a joint density over the next mark and its inter-event time and therefore deliver predictive distributions by construction. Real event logs violate the simple-point-process assumption these models rest on, since consecutive events frequently carry identical timestamps; we handle such ties explicitly and combine a transformer encoder with a mixture decoder over inter-event times, trained by exact log-likelihood. On ten public logs, the resulting model matches discriminative baselines on point accuracy, dominates them on the calibration and sharpness of remaining-time distributions, and is the cheapest at inference, since a full predictive distribution is obtained in a single forward pass without sampling.
Jiaxin Yuan, Daniela Grigori, Han van der Aa
Paris Dauphine University-PSL, Pl. du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 75016 Paris, France · University of Vienna, Universitätsring 1, 1010 Wien, Austria
Irregularly sampled multivariate event streams remain a difficult modality for generative modeling: tokenization-based approaches break down when inter-event intervals vary by orders of magnitude. We (i) propose SurF, a generative model that uses the Time Rescaling Theorem (TRT) as a learnable bijection between event sequences and i.i.d.\ unit-rate exponential noise, enabling a single model to be trained across heterogeneous event-stream datasets; (ii) three efficient parameterizations of the cumulative intensity that scale to long sequences; and (iii) a Transformer-based encoder for multi-dataset pretraining. On six real-world benchmarks, SurF achieves the best reported time RMSE on Earthquake, Retweet, and Taobao, and is within trial-level noise of the strongest specialist on the remaining three. Under a strict leave-one-out protocol, the held-out checkpoint beats every classical and neural-autoregressive baseline on 5/6 datasets and beats every baseline on Amazon and Earthquake, an initial step toward foundation models over asynchronous event streams (Code is available at https://github.com/MrRezaeiUofT/SurF).
Mohammad R. Rezaei, Tejas Balaji, Rahul G. Krishnan
Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Vector Institute Toronto, ON, Canada
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to forecasting. To evaluate this capability while mitigating pre-training data contamination, several living benchmarks have been proposed. However, existing benchmarks either lack the multidimensional events essential for accurate forecasting due to data scarcity, or focus on relatively closed environments. To assess the predictive capabilities of LLMs in complex, real-world scenarios, we propose LEAF, the first living benchmark for event-augmented forecasting tasks, including future event probabilities, trend and time series forecasting. LEAF utilizes a recursive retrieval agent system paired with dual-agent cross-validation to provide comprehensive and relevant auxiliary text for forecasting. Evaluating state-of-the-art proprietary and open-weight LLMs, we find that these models can leverage signals extracted from complex events to enhance predictive performance. In the stock domain, we find that LLMs achieve better performance on equities they confidently identify as more predictable. Furthermore, the events demonstrate a strong correlation with the target equities. To this end, LEAF provides a necessary, dynamically updating testbed to continuously track and drive progress in event-driven forecasting tasks.