Time series forecasting models are increasingly deployed in continuously evolving environments. After a forecast is issued, future observations gradually arrive and reveal how the model has failed. Existing methods mainly treat such observations as supervision for parameter updates. However, it remains unclear whether verified forecasting errors can themselves provide causal feedback for correcting future predictions. To address this, we introduce Error Feedback Calibration (EFC), a fully test-time framework for deterministic post-hoc correction of time series forecasting. EFC constructs a Causal Error Diagonal (CED) from revealed errors of overlapping historical forecasts, providing a fresh view of the frozen forecaster's recent failure behavior. Then Cumulative Error Transport (CET) maps this error state to future residuals using cumulative estimation, while temporal out-of-sample validation controls the correction strength. Temporal Residual Learning (TRL) further predicts only the residual structure left after CET from recent CED trajectories, rather than relearning the entire forecasting error. Extensive experiments across forecasting backbones and datasets show that EFC broadly improves forecasting performance while substantially controlling harmful over correction.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Forecast errors as causal feedback. Historical point forecasts issued at different origins overlap at the same target time. Once its observation becomes available, their errors at different lead times are revealed. Rather than discarding these verified errors after evaluation, error feedback correction uses them to inform subsequent forecasts from a frozen forecaster.
Fig. 2: Overview of Error Feedback Calibration (EFC). Upon observing the current target, CED collects verified errors from overlapping historical forecasts at different origins and lead times. CET learns cumulative error transport from fully matured historical samples, while TRL models the remaining CET-deployment residual using recent CED states.
Dataset
Domain
Length
Variates
Forecast Horizon
Dataset Size
Interval
ETTh1
Temperature
14,400
7
{96,192,336,720}
(8545,2881,2881)
1 hour
ETTh2
Temperature
14,400
7
{96,192,336,720}
(8545,2881,2881)
1 hour
ETTm1
Temperature
57,600
7
{96,192,336,720}
(34465,11521,11521)
15 min
ETTm2
Temperature
57,600
7
{96,192,336,720}
(34465,11521,11521)
15 min
Electricity
Electricity
26,304
321
{96,192,336,720}
(18317,2633,5261)
1 hour
Exchange
Exchange Rate
7,588
8
{96,192,336,720}
(5120,665,1422)
1 day
TABLE I: Descriptions of conventional time series forecasting benchmarks. Length denotes the total number of timestamps, Variates denotes the number of observed variables, and Split represents the number of samples in (train, validation, test).
Model
Normalized MASE ↓
Reduction
Task Win
Frozen
+EFC
(%)
/92
VisionTS
0.808
0.776
4.0
80/92
Sundial
0.746
0.731
1.9
78/92
Chronos-Bolt
0.728
0.701
3.7
71/92
Moirai
0.830
0.791
4.7
70/92
TimesFM-2.0
0.713
0.652
8.5
68/92
TABLE III: Average forecasting performance on time series foundation models under the TIME benchmark. Lower normalized MASE indicates better forecasting accuracy. Boldface denotes the better result.
Method
Metric
Electricity
ETTh1
Weather
Traffic
96
192
336
720
96
192
336
720
96
192
336
720
96
192
336
720
Backbone
MSE
0.152
0.166
0.181
0.268
0.392
0.451
0.516
0.552
0.176
0.225
0.281
0.359
0.396
0.420
0.392
0.422
MAE
0.243
0.256
0.273
0.330
0.407
0.442
0.471
0.507
0.214
0.256
0.296
0.349
0.271
0.281
0.316
0.333
PIR
MSE
0.152
0.169
0.181
0.223
0.396
0.464
0.522
0.601
0.171
0.218
0.279
0.362
0.389
0.414
0.427
0.455
MAE
0.245
0.261
0.277
0.312
0.402
0.456
0.501
0.597
0.212
0.253
0.300
0.356
0.267
0.278
0.323
0.336
COSA
MSE
0.162
0.175
0.188
0.212
0.439
0.499
0.557
0.639
0.168
0.215
0.272
0.342
0.415
0.439
0.454
0.482
TABLE IV: Comparison with representative post-hoc forecast revision and test-time adaptation methods on Electricity, ETTh1, Weather, Traffic datasets. We use iTransformer as the backbone. The best results are highlighted in bold, and the second-best results are underlined.
Error Representation
Delay
Multi-lead
MSE ↓
Δ MSE ↓
①w/o CED
–
×
0.195
–
②Matured error Et−H
h
✓
0.164
-15.90%
③One-step error
0
×
0.171
-12.31%
④CED
0
✓
0.159
-18.46%
TABLE V: Ablation study of Causal Error Diagonal (CED).
Variant
Transport
OOS α
EMA
MSE ↓
Δ MSE ↓
①Direct CED
×
–
–
0.317
62.56%
②Raw Transport
✓
×
×
0.166
-14.87%
③+ OOS Reliability
✓
✓
×
0.161
-17.44%
④ Full CET
✓
✓
✓
0.159
-18.46%
TABLE VI: Ablation study of Cumulative Error Transport (CET).
Variant
Temporal Context
Residual Target
OOS β
MSE ↓
Δ over CET ↓
①CET only
–
–
–
0.170
–
② R=1
×
✓
✓
0.162
-4.71%
③Full-error target
✓
×
✓
0.166
-2.35%
④ β=1
✓
✓
×
0.160
-5.88%
⑤ Full TRL
✓
✓
✓
0.159
-6.47%
TABLE VII: Ablation study of Temporal Residual Learning (TRL).
Fig. 3: Method analysis of error feedback signal. We use DLinear as backbone, with the left is on Traffic dataset, and right is on ECL dataset. Normalized residual MSE is computed relative to zero correction, with a reference value of 1.0. Lower values indicate better prediction of future forecasting errors.
Transport Estimator
Correction Gain Δ MSE ↓
Win Rate ↑
Numerical Stability
Online SGD
+26.40 (med +14.20)
0.000
Unstable
Sliding RLS
+7.11 (med +1.66)
0.458
Oscillating
Forgetting RLS
-5.39 (med -5.15)
0.583
Stable
Cumulative RLS(Ours)
-9.72 (med -11.43)
0.809
Stable
TABLE VIII: Stability analysis of different error transport estimators. Results are evaluated across three forecasting backbones and four datasets. Values in parentheses denote median correction gain across deployment steps.
Fig. 4: Analysis of residual predictability after CET. (a) Residual error reduction brought by TRL. Residual MSE normalized by CET-only correction (CET only = 1.0), comparing zero correction, CET only, and CET+TRL. (b) Correlation between CET reliability and TRL gains.
Backbone
Parameters
Inference Time
Base
+EFC
Δ
Base
+EFC
Δ
(M)
(M)
(%)
(ms/iter)
(ms/iter)
(%)
DLinear
0.074
0.108
45.9
0.630
0.917
45.6
PatchTST
2.189
2.240
2.3
2.151
2.529
17.6
iTransformer
25.647
25.698
0.2
1.451
1.714
18.1
TimeXer
34.933
34.984
0.1
6.400
7.122
11.3
TABLE IX: Efficiency analysis of EFC under online inference on Traffic dataset. The overhead is computed relative to the frozen backbone.
Fig. 5: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis of the error history length R , transport window size z , forgetting factor ρ , and hidden dimension.
Fig. 6: Forecasting visualization for backbone models with and without EFC. Representative forecasting samples are on Electricity, Traffic, and Weather datasets using DLiner, iTransformer, and PatchTST. Pred denotes the frozen backbone forecast, while +EFC denotes the corrected forecast.
Time series forecasting predicts future values from ordered observations using statistical, neural, and probabilistic models to support decisions under uncertainty.
Modern deep-learning models have achieved remarkable success in time-series forecasting. Yet, their performance degrades in long-term prediction due to error accumulation in autoregressive inference, where predictions are recursively used as inputs. While classical error correction mechanisms (ECMs) have long been used in statistical methods, their applicability to deep learning models remains limited or ineffective. In this work, we revisit the error accumulation problem in deep time-series forecasting and investigate the role and necessity of ECMs in this new context. We propose a simple, architecture-agnostic error correction model that can be integrated with any existing forecaster without requiring retraining. By explicitly decomposing predictions into trend and seasonal components and training the corrector to adjust each separately, we introduce the Universal Error Corrector with Seasonal-Trend Decomposition (UEC-STD), which significantly improves correction accuracy and robustness across 4 backbones and 10 datasets. Our findings provide a practical tool for enhancing forecasts while offering new insights into mitigating autoregressive errors in deep time-series models. Code is available at https://github.com/DA2I2-SLM/UEC-STD.
Minh Hoang Nguyen, Dai Do, Huu Hiep Nguyen +3
Deakin Applied AI Initiative, Deakin University, Australia.
Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) provide general-purpose forecasting capabilities, yet their forecasts can remain misaligned with the temporal characteristics of a target domain. This motivates lightweight forecast correction even when only black-box access to the TSFM is available. Our key observation is that two forms of historical information provide complementary correction signals: historical analogues reveal how similar contexts evolved, while past forecast errors reveal a TSFM's characteristic deviations in the target domain. Based on this observation, we propose ECHO, a black-box forecast correction framework that learns from both sources. ECHO uses AnalogE to assess retrieved historical analogues together with the current context and base forecast, learning transferable corrections through cross-domain pretraining. In parallel, RecentE learns target-specific residual corrections from past forecast errors and refines them as causally available feedback accumulates. ECHO dynamically combines the two corrections according to their observed forecasting performance. Across 5 representative TSFMs and 9 real-world datasets, ECHO reduces MSE in all 45 backbone--dataset settings, yielding an average relative reduction of 9.26% in macro-average MSE. Its gains also extend to long-horizon forecasting.
Boya Zhang, Xilin Dai, Yilin Wang +4
Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Post-hoc residual correction can reduce forecasting error, but always-on updates often fail to generalize: when residual signals are weak or noisy, expressive correctors can overfit and even increase the overall forecasting errors. We introduce CRC, a robust residual correction framework that couples a hybrid corrector with a validation-calibrated selective deployment rule. CRC proposes corrections via a conservative ridge "floor" plus conditional nonlinear refinement, but deploys them only when held-out evidence indicates net error reduction over a frozen baseline forecaster. CRC treats when to revise a forecast as a validation-calibrated deployment decision, not only how to fit residuals. Across standard long-sequence benchmarks and multiple backbones, CRC improves horizon-averaged MSE and MAE in most dataset-backbone pairs, with particularly large gains on complex datasets (e.g., over 20% relative MSE reduction on Traffic). We additionally report the non-degradation rate (NDR) as a stability diagnostic of harmful updates and ablate the validation-calibrated "firewall" that stabilizes MSE gains.
Jianxiang Xie, Yuncheng Hua, Mingyue Cheng +2
School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia · State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, School of Computer Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)