Quantile forecasts summarize uncertainty at each future time step, while diffusion forecasters represent it through sampled future trajectories. We study how predicted quantiles can serve as distributional controls for diffusion forecasting. Specifically, we investigate how the mechanism of quantile integration affects its effectiveness in guiding a pretrained diffusion forecaster. We find that residual control throughout the denoising network yields the most consistent improvements. We instantiate this approach as Control-TS, which learns a quantile-control pathway while keeping the pretrained backbone frozen. Across eight benchmarks, Control-TS consistently improves the backbone's CRPS, achieves competitive performance against state-of-the-art forecasting models, and retains its gains in capacity-matched comparisons. Further analyses examine how these gains depend on quantile granularity, predictor choice, and forecast quality. Finally, we introduce the Conditional Linear Predictive Score (CLPS), which complements distributional metrics by evaluating the downstream forecasting utility of generated futures. Together, these findings support predicted quantiles as an effective interface between explicit uncertainty estimates and diffusion-based trajectory generation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Integrating predicted quantiles with diffusion forecasting. (A) concatenates, (B) FiLM, (C) ensembles. (D) adds residuals before the first 1, 2, or all blocks (Control-TS). All improve backbone CRPS on some datasets; full-depth Control-TS gives the most consistent gains on all eight.
Figure 2: Control-TS, the full-depth residual realization. A dedicated quantile pathway injects depth-aligned control through zero-initialized 1×1 projections into the frozen backbone.
Dataset
Backbone
Output ensembling
Input concat.
FiLM
1-block residual
2-block residual
Control-TS (full-depth)
Electricity
0.049 ± 0.000
0.049 ± 0.000
0.062 ± 0.000
0.054 ± 0.000
0.052 ± 0.000
0.052 ± 0.000
0.047 ± 0.000
Exchange
0.012 ± 0.001
0.008 ± 0.000
0.007 ± 0.000
0.008 ± 0.000
0.009 ± 0.000
0.008 ± 0.000
0.008 ± 0.000
KDDCup
0.312 ± 0.001
0.320 ± 0.003
0.289 ± 0.002
0.268 ± 0.005
0.286 ± 0.001
0.285 ± 0.002
0.249 ± 0.001
M4-Hourly
0.034 ± 0.000
0.034 ± 0.000
0.027 ± 0.001
0.026 ± 0.001
0.032 ± 0.000
0.026 ± 0.000
0.022 ± 0.000
Solar
0.402 ± 0.000
0.378 ± 0.001
0.308 ± 0.004
0.360 ± 0.002
0.444 ± 0.000
0.415 ± 0.001
0.341 ± 0.000
Traffic
0.099 ± 0.000
0.099 ± 0.000
0.117 ± 0.000
0.116 ± 0.001
0.125 ± 0.000
0.118 ± 0.000
0.097 ± 0.000
Table 1: Quantile integration mechanisms. Best values are bold , second-best values are underlined .
Method
Electricity
Exchange
KDDCup
M4-Hourly
Solar
Traffic
UberTLC
Wikipedia
ARIMA
0.344 ± 0.000
0.008 ± 0.000
0.514 ± 0.000
0.031 ± 0.000
0.558 ± 0.003
0.486 ± 0.000
0.478 ± 0.000
0.654 ± 0.000
DLinear
0.058 ± 0.001
0.015 ± 0.004
0.318 ± 0.015
0.055 ± 0.007
0.794 ± 0.027
0.131 ± 0.000
0.250 ± 0.006
0.259 ± 0.002
DeepAR
0.051 ± 0.000
0.013 ± 0.004
0.362 ± 0.017
0.046 ± 0.006
0.429 ± 0.055
0.103 ± 0.002
0.169 ± 0.002
0.215 ± 0.003
TFT
0.060 ± 0.001
0.011 ± 0.000
0.543 ± 0.048
0.038 ± 0.002
0.371 ± 0.006
0.128 ± 0.005
0.202 ± 0.009
0.219 ± 0.004
PatchTST
0.055 ± 0.001
0.010 ± 0.001
0.420 ± 0.011
0.034 ± 0.004
0.728 ± 0.015
0.151 ± 0.007
0.219 ± 0.004
0.209 ± 0.001
iTransformer
0.074 ± 0.000
0.010 ± 0.000
-
-
0.496 ± 0.000
0.158 ± 0.000
-
0.262 ± 0.000
Table 2: Forecasting results on eight benchmarks. CRPS; lower is better. Best/second-best values are bold / underlined , including ties. Our evaluations report mean ± SD over three independent runs with different random seeds.
Figure 3: Qualitative predictive distributions. Control-TS and TSDiff medians and 90% intervals on shared M4-Hourly and Electricity contexts. Shaded regions denote the forecast horizon.
Backbone
Metric
Improved datasets
Range Δ (%)
CSDI
CRPS
8/8
[+0.34,+11.05]
MG-TSD
CRPS-sum
5/8
[−7.23,+38.27]
Table 3: Quantile control on additional diffusion backbones. CRPS for univariate CSDI; CRPS-sum for multivariate MG-TSD. Results are based on three independent runs with different random seeds. Positive Δ denotes relative improvement over the corresponding backbone. Scores are not pooled across backbones or with the main benchmark comparison. Appendix B.17 provides detailed results and protocols.
Figure 4: Robustness to degraded control signals. Left: CRPS improvement over TSDiff as Gaussian corruption increases; positive values indicate retained gains. Right: selected M4-Hourly and Electricity examples with inaccurate quantile scaffolds; Control-TS stays closer to the realized continuation than the scaffold. Full corruption results and failure cases are in Appendices B.13 , B.14 .
Electricity
Exchange
KDDCup
M4-Hourly
Solar
Traffic
UberTLC
Wikipedia
Linear (CLPS)
TSDiff
0.070 ± 0.001
0.096 ± 0.000
0.900 ± 0.001
0.041 ± 0.000
0.543 ± 0.002
0.157 ± 0.001
0.303 ± 0.003
0.392 ± 0.006
Control-TS
0.072 ± 0.004
0.028 ± 0.000
0.699 ± 0.006
0.038 ± 0.001
0.526 ± 0.003
0.154 ± 0.001
0.306 ± 0.001
0.374 ± 0.007
DeepAR
TSDiff
0.054 ± 0.002
0.011 ± 0.003
0.480 ± 0.027
0.025 ± 0.001
0.380 ± 0.016
0.116 ± 0.002
0.174 ± 0.002
0.224 ± 0.006
Control-TS
0.054 ± 0.001
0.012 ± 0.008
0.411 ± 0.033
0.035 ± 0.007
0.387 ± 0.009
0.110 ± 0.002
0.173 ± 0.006
0.223 ± 0.005
TFT
TSDiff
0.058 ± 0.001
0.015 ± 0.002
0.818 ± 0.099
0.032 ± 0.002
0.374 ± 0.007
0.137 ± 0.007
0.238 ± 0.011
0.232 ± 0.003
Control-TS
0.060 ± 0.001
0.007 ± 0.000
0.632 ± 0.001
0.032 ± 0.001
0.364 ± 0.007
0.124 ± 0.014
0.221 ± 0.010
0.230 ± 0.001
Table 4: Train-on-Hybrid, Test-on-Real CRPS. Mean ± SD over three independent runs with different random seeds. The better synthetic source is bold , including ties.
Appendix figures & tables22 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Wikipedia denoiser L2 loss over 1000 epochs.
Figure 6: Validation CRPS evaluated every 50 epochs during 1000-epoch Controller training (two example datasets).
Dataset
Train
Test
Domain
Freq.
Median Seq. Len.
Pred. Len.
Electricity a
370
2590
R+
H
5833
24
Exchange b
8
40
R+
D
6071
30
KDDCup c
270
270
N
H
10850
48
M4-Hourly d
414
414
N
H
960
48
Solar e
137
959
R+
H
7009
24
Traffic f
963
6741
(0,1)
H
4001
24
Appendix
Table 5: Overview of the datasets and statistics used in our experiments.
Dataset
GluonTS name
Source / provider
License or terms of use
Solar
solar_nips
NREL / Monash Time Series Forecasting Repository
CC BY 4.0 via Monash/Zenodo.
Electricity
electricity_nips
UCI Machine Learning Repository
CC BY 4.0.
Traffic
traffic_nips
Caltrans PeMS / Monash Time Series Forecasting Repository
CC BY 4.0 via Monash/Zenodo.
Exchange
exchange_rate_nips
LSTNet multivariate time-series repository
Research use stated by the source repository; no formal named license identified.
M4-Hourly
m4_hourly
M4 Competition / Monash Time Series Forecasting Repository
CC BY 4.0 via Monash/Zenodo.
KDDCup
kdd_cup_2018_without_missing
KDD Cup 2018 / Monash Time Series Forecasting Repository
CC BY 4.0 via Monash/Zenodo.
Appendix
Table 6: Existing dataset assets used in this work. Licenses and terms are reported according to the corresponding official dataset pages, repositories, or documentation pages accessed on 2026-05-07.
Component
Setting
Hardware
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
Diffusion steps
Tdiff=100
β schedule
linear from 10−4 to 10−1
Backbone block
S4 residual blocks (bidirectional), dstate=128
Residual depth
K=3 (small configuration)
Hidden width
64
Appendix
Table 7: Summary of key hyperparameters used by our implementation and configs.
TSDiff-Wide
Control-TS
Dataset
Params [k]
CRPS
Params [k]
CRPS
Electricity
501.4
0.048 ± 0.000
505.6
0.047 ± 0.000
Exchange
501.5
0.012 ± 0.000
493.1
0.008 ± 0.000
KDDCup
501.4
0.345 ± 0.002
504.2
0.249 ± 0.001
M4-Hourly
498.8
0.035 ± 0.000
407.9
0.022 ± 0.000
Solar
501.4
0.409 ± 0.001
412.4
0.341 ± 0.000
Appendix
Table 8: Complete-system capacity comparison: mean ± SD. Control-TS includes the backbone, Controller, and external forecaster; its results are from Table 2 . Best mean CRPS is bold .
DeepAR-Large
TFT-Large
Control-TS
Dataset
Params [k]
CRPS
Params [k]
CRPS
Params [k]
CRPS
Electricity
502.7
0.047 ± 0.001
493.5
0.048 ± 0.000
505.6
0.047 ± 0.000
Exchange
496.5
0.022 ± 0.006
500.3
0.010 ± 0.001
493.1
0.008 ± 0.000
KDDCup
502.7
0.380 ± 0.019
493.5
0.354 ± 0.044
504.2
0.249 ± 0.001
M4-Hourly
502.7
0.047 ± 0.006
493.5
0.030 ± 0.003
407.9
0.022 ± 0.000
Solar
502.7
0.371 ± 0.020
493.5
0.552 ± 0.045
412.4
0.341 ± 0.000
Appendix
Table 9: Capacity-comparable explicit forecasters: mean ± SD. Control-TS results are from Table 2 . Best values are bold .
Mechanism
Better than the backbone
Ensembling
4/8
Input concatenation
4/8
FiLM
4/8
1-block residual
3/8
2-block residual
3/8
Control-TS
8/8
Appendix
Table 10: Datasets on which each interaction mechanism improves the backbone.
Input concatenation
FiLM
Dataset
Fine-tuned
Frozen backbone
Fine-tuned
Frozen backbone
Electricity
0.062 ± 0.000
0.065 ± 0.000
0.054 ± 0.000
0.060 ± 0.000
Exchange
0.007 ± 0.000
0.009 ± 0.000
0.008 ± 0.000
0.010 ± 0.000
KDDCup
0.289 ± 0.002
0.332 ± 0.001
0.268 ± 0.005
0.292 ± 0.001
M4-Hourly
0.027 ± 0.001
0.034 ± 0.001
0.026 ± 0.001
0.040 ± 0.001
Solar
0.308 ± 0.004
0.390 ± 0.005
0.360 ± 0.002
0.423 ± 0.003
Appendix
Table 11: CRPS for fine-tuned and frozen-backbone input concatenation and FiLM. Fine-tuned entries match Table 1 . Best values are bold .
External forecaster
Variant
Electricity
Exchange
KDDCup
M4-Hourly
Solar
Traffic
UberTLC
Wikipedia
Baseline
0.049
0.012
0.312
0.034
0.402
0.099
0.172
0.211
DeepAR
Q1
0.054
0.009
0.303
0.025
0.419
0.098
0.177
0.203
Q3
0.057
0.009
0.267
0.026
0.397
0.097
0.171
0.205
Q5
0.056
0.009
0.245
0.022
0.341
0.100
0.173
0.200
TFT
Q1
0.049
0.008
0.282
0.028
0.408
0.107
0.170
0.204
Q3
0.048
0.008
0.249
0.026
0.392
0.102
0.169
0.202
Appendix
Table 12: Per-variant CRPS on the eight benchmark datasets for each external forecaster (rows) and quantile variant Q1/Q3/Q5 (Section 2.4 ), with the TSDiff baseline for reference. The best entry per column is shown in bold and the second-best is underlined . Tied entries are marked jointly.
Q1
Q3
Q5
Dataset
Control-TS
Context ×1
Control-TS
Context ×3
Control-TS
Context ×5
Electricity
0.049 ± 0.000
0.047 ± 0.000
0.048 ± 0.000
0.049 ± 0.000
0.047 ± 0.000
0.048 ± 0.000
Exchange
0.008 ± 0.000
0.010 ± 0.000
0.008 ± 0.000
0.011 ± 0.000
0.008 ± 0.000
0.012 ± 0.000
KDDCup
0.282 ± 0.001
0.311 ± 0.001
0.249 ± 0.001
0.319 ± 0.001
0.256 ± 0.001
0.282 ± 0.001
M4-Hourly
0.025 ± 0.000
0.045 ± 0.000
0.026 ± 0.000
0.033 ± 0.000
0.022 ± 0.000
0.030 ± 0.000
Solar
0.408 ± 0.000
0.375 ± 0.000
0.392 ± 0.000
0.449 ± 0.000
0.341 ± 0.000
0.440 ± 0.001
Appendix
Table 13: Observed context as control. CRPS (mean ± SD) using the same full-depth residual architecture. Control-TS values are from Table 2 . The better value in each pair is bold , including ties.
Dataset
Control-TS
No zero-init
Electricity
0.047
0.051
Exchange
0.008
0.009
KDDCup
0.249
0.302
M4-Hourly
0.022
0.027
Solar
0.341
0.433
Traffic
0.097
0.113
Appendix
Table 14: Projection-initialization ablation for full-depth Control-TS. Best values are bold .
Dataset
Pretrained initialization
Control-TS
Electricity
0.050 ± 0.000
0.047 ± 0.000
Exchange
0.009 ± 0.000
0.008 ± 0.000
KDDCup
0.305 ± 0.000
0.249 ± 0.001
M4-Hourly
0.030 ± 0.000
0.022 ± 0.000
Solar
0.401 ± 0.000
0.341 ± 0.000
Traffic
0.107 ± 0.001
0.097 ± 0.000
Appendix
Table 15: Controller-initialization ablation for full-depth Control-TS (CRPS; lower is better). Control-TS initializes its controller residual blocks randomly. Pretrained initialization instead starts each controller block from a copy of the corresponding residual block of the pretrained diffusion backbone; the copies are trained while the backbone remains frozen, and all other settings are unchanged.
Dataset
1 block
2 blocks
Control-TS
Electricity
0.052
0.052
0.047
Exchange
0.009
0.008
0.008
KDDCup
0.286
0.285
0.249
M4-Hourly
0.032
0.026
0.022
Solar
0.444
0.415
0.341
Traffic
0.125
0.118
0.097
Appendix
Table 16: Controller-depth ablations. bold identifies the full-depth reference, which is lowest or tied-lowest at displayed precision.
Figure 7: Examples of corrupted quantile-control signals under additive Gaussian perturbations in normalized control space. Solid curves show the original quantile trajectories and dashed curves show the perturbed controls for representative datasets and increasing noise levels.
Dataset
Clean
σ=0.01
σ=0.02
σ=0.05
σ=0.1
Backbone
Electricity
0.047
0.048
0.049
0.058
0.080
0.049
Exchange
0.008
0.010
0.014
0.031
0.065
0.012
KDDCup
0.249
0.249
0.251
0.252
0.261
0.312
M4
0.022
0.023
0.024
0.037
0.053
0.034
Solar
0.341
0.374
0.377
0.389
0.424
0.402
Traffic
0.097
0.098
0.099
0.108
0.131
0.099
Appendix
Table 17: CRPS under Gaussian degradation of the control signal at inference time. Noise is added in normalized control space. Entries better than the unguided diffusion-backbone baseline are shown in bold , while ties are underlined .
Figure 8: Failure cases of Control-TS: misaligned quantile scaffolds where the forecast follows the unreliable signal.
Dataset
Backbone (frozen) [k]
Controller (trainable) [k]
Controller / Backbone
Electricity
193.4
191.4
0.99
Exchange
193.4
190.1
0.98
KDDCup
193.4
190.0
0.98
M4
192.1
188.2
0.98
Solar
193.4
191.4
0.99
Traffic
193.4
190.0
0.98
Appendix
Table 18: Parameter budget of Control-TS per dataset. The diffusion backbone is held fixed during Controller training; only the Controller branch receives gradient updates. Counts in thousands of parameters (k); ratio is Controller / Backbone.
Inference (sampling)
Training (one step)
Dataset
Δ Time (%)
GFLOPs
Δ VRAM (%)
Δ Time (%)
GFLOPs
Δ VRAM (%)
Electricity
+19.1
21.5 / 26.8
+6.1
+13.5
0.20 / 0.24
+66.2
Exchange
+61.1
24.2 / 28.7
+4.0
+65.6
0.23 / 0.24
+66.0
KDDCup
+17.1
21.5 / 25.2
+5.9
+13.2
0.20 / 0.21
+64.8
M4
+39.2
17.0 / 18.2
+3.5
+6.5
0.17 / 0.14
+63.9
Solar
+21.4
21.5 / 26.4
+4.5
+14.9
0.20 / 0.24
+65.0
Appendix
Table 19: Computational overhead of Control-TS relative to the frozen backbone for all eight benchmarks ( B=16 , Tdiff=100 , with quantile observation self-guidance). Each Δ column is the relative increase (%) of Control-TS over the diffusion backbone; GFLOPs columns report {\color[rgb]{0.1211,0.4648,0.707}\text{Backbone}}\,/\,{\color[rgb]{0.8398,0.1523,0.1563}\text{Control-TS}} .
CSDI: univariate
MG-TSD: multivariate
Dataset
CRPS
CRPS-sum
Electricity
+7.90
+6.35
Exchange
+9.98
−4.16
KDDCup
+3.90
−7.23
M4-Hourly
+9.73
+3.98
Solar
+0.34
+38.27
Appendix
Table 20: Paired test-score reductions (%) from Control-TS, using 100 forecast paths. Positive values indicate improvement; negative values indicate regression.
Figure 9: Additional qualitative comparisons between Control-TS and the TSDiff baseline across selected benchmark series.
Figure 10: Examples with accurate quantile scaffolds: Control-TS tightens its predictive distribution around the realized future.
Probabilistic time series forecasting estimates distributions of future values or trajectories to quantify uncertainty and support risk-aware decisions.
Recent probabilistic weather forecasters train stochastic predictors with the continuous ranked probability score (CRPS) to generate each ensemble member in a single forward pass. These models learn the predictive distribution from the forecast context alone, which becomes difficult at longer forecast horizons where uncertainty is high. To learn the predictive distribution more effectively, we introduce auxiliary conditional denoising tasks that predict the same future state from the context and its corrupted version, which provides partial future information that can reduce prediction ambiguity. Building on distributional diffusion models, we learn the conditional distributions of these tasks with a single stochastic predictor by minimizing a proper scoring rule across noise levels. At inference, the predictor can still generate each ensemble member in a single forward pass at the fully corrupted endpoint. Standard CRPS training is recovered as the endpoint-only special case of our formulation, so our framework extends existing CRPS-based forecasters with only additional conditioning inputs. Controlled experiments show that the auxiliary tasks improve one-step forecasting across architectures, with larger gains at longer forecast horizons. The gains extend to high-dimensional global weather forecasting under both training from scratch and fine-tuning, along with improved calibration and potential benefits for generalization under distribution shift.
Probabilistic time series forecasting requires modeling and predicting complex and time-varying distributions. Recently, Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model (DDPM)-based approaches have shown promise by equipping the dif- fusion process with pretrained mean and variance estimators to accommodate distributional shift. However, these methods typically follow the standard DDPM framework and consider only partial components of the evidence lower bound (ELBO), treating the training of estimators as designed regression tasks separate from the variational inference framework. To address this, we rethink the ELBO under the Location-Scale Noise Model (LSNM) and find that it naturally induces a Gaussian negative log likelihood objective for the estimators and inherently defines a joint training objective that unifies recent diffusion paradigms for probabilistic forecasting. Building on this principled ELBO reformulation, we propose Diff- PTS, a general framework that enables end-to-end optimization of all components within the ELBO. Across multiple benchmarks, DiffPTS consistently outperforms recent models, achieving state-of-the-art performance with an average CRPS/MSE reduction of over 14.53%/16.55% compared to existing diffusion-based methods. The code is available at https://github.com/wwy155/DiffPTS.
Weiwei Ye, Dongyuan Li, Hangchen Liu +3
The University of Tokyo · Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen
Diffusion models offer a natural way to model uncertainty in time series forecasting, yet their iterative sampling process is often treated as a uniformly beneficial refinement procedure. Our study challenges this view by examining how forecast quality evolves throughout reverse diffusion. We find that general temporal structure is often recovered at relatively high noise levels, whereas continued low-noise refinement can introduce statistical drift and degrade the final forecast. Our analysis further suggests that this behavior explains why prior methods often favor relatively narrow diffusion architecture and schedule design. Building on this observation, we propose a label-free global stopping criterion that detects the optimal termination point, eventually speeding up inference and improving predictive accuracy. Additionally, since early stopping terminates inference in high-noise regions, we propose a Bernoulli timestep sampler that concentrates training on this region while preserving coverage of the full diffusion process. Extensive experiments conducted across eight real-world datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our method compared to existing approaches.
Dat Nguyen-Cong, Luong Tran, Tung Kieu
FPT Software AI Center, FPT Corporation · Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University, Denmark