Large language models (LLMs) can now perceive, describe, and reason about images and audio, yet time series understanding remains underestimated: most work uses LLMs as forecasters and classifiers, reasoning studies are few and narrow, and no suite trains and evaluates the full range of capabilities. In this paper, we build the first such suite, with 337K training and 44K evaluation samples across three progressive capabilities, Perceive, Solve, and Reason, and use it to ask how time series should enter an LLM that must master all three, and in what order. We find that a dedicated encoder is essential: with one, a 4B model surpasses GPT-4o on every perception attribute we test, whereas textualizing the series costs 8--10 points in reasoning accuracy. The capabilities then build on one another: learning them in order beats mixing the same data and rivals reasoning-only training with over three times the reasoning data, but only when an encoder is used. Analyses further reveal that capabilities are transferred through distinct network depths rather than simply stacked, and that a stage converged on its own benchmark is not necessarily ready for the next. Distilled into a simple recipe, these findings yield 4B TS-LLMs that, without any target-domain data, outperform four recent 7B TS-LLMs on seven of eight out-of-domain metrics, by up to 11 points. We therefore advocate treating time series as a first-class modality for LLMs, read through dedicated encoders and taught to perceive before they reason.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Three Model Architecture.
Figure 2: Categorical and numerical perception comparison across different methods.
Model
Training Setting
Fore. MSE ↓
Impu. MSE ↓
Ano Det. Acc. ↑
Class. Acc. ↑
Qwen3-4B
No fine-tuning
1.970
0.0286
0.333
0.296
Pre-align
Stage 1 only
1.842
0.0194
0.587
0.459
Stage 2 only
1.368
0.0136
0.682
0.567
Stage (1 → 2)
1.328
0.0132
0.739
0.628
Post-align
Stage 1 only
1.716
0.0217
0.612
0.431
Stage 2 only
1.423
0.0146
0.660
0.529
Table 1: Results of four task solving evaluation sets.
Model
Training Setting
Decoding
Grounding
Inferring
Extrapolating
Acting
Pre-align
Stage 3 Only
72.2
68.5
61.3
57.2
50.7
Stage (1 → 3)
77.8
81.5
63.3
62.2
51.8
Stage (2 → 3)
75.1
72.0
65.8
59.5
53.9
Stage (1 → 2 → 3)
82.5
79.1
70.7
65.4
57.2
Post-align
Stage 3 Only
68.5
66.2
58.9
58.8
49.2
Stage (1 → 3)
75.6
73.8
61.2
64.1
54.3
Table 2: Accuracy ↑ (%) of different strategies on the Evaluation Set B of high-level reasoning.
Model
Training Setting
Ture/False QA
Multi-Choice QA
Open-end QA
Open-end QA
Acc. ↑
Acc. ↑
ROUGE-L ↑
BLEU ↑
Pre-align
Stage 3 Only
71.4
58.6
43.8
24.7
Stage (1 → 3)
78.3
62.2
45.5
25.8
Stage (2 → 3)
74.5
65.1
47.2
26.7
Stage (1 → 2 → 3)
80.6
68.8
51.6
31.5
Post-align
Stage 3 Only
66.3
60.3
42.1
22.3
Table 3: Performance on the Evaluation Set A of high-level reasoning.
Figure 3: Accuracy across different training data scales.
Figure 4: Reason under the Textualization paradigm across training data scales of high-level reasoning.
Training Setting
Training Data
Evaluation Performance
Relative Perf.
I → II → III
Stage 1 only
(40% → 100%) I
0.613, 0.662, 0.738 , 0.745, 0.751
98.3%
0.743
Stage (1 → 2)
70% I, (40% → 100%) II
0.542, 0.603, 0.644 , 0.649, 0.652
98.8%
0.684
Stage (1 → 2 → 3)
70% I, 70% II, (40% → 100%) III
0.537, 0.569, 0.616, 0.663 , 0.682
97.2%
0.710
Table 4: Stage-wise performance of the Pre-align model under increasing training data scales. For each stage, we progressively increase the training data while fixing preceding stages at their identified saturation points. Stage 1 uses Numerical Perception Relative Accuracy; Stage 2 uses Anomaly Detection and Classification Accuracy; Stage 3 uses the average Accuracy on Evaluation Set B. For convenient evaluation, we select accuracy-based tasks as measures. Bold denotes the local saturation points.
Figure 5: Optimization strength dynamics across capability stages.
Figure 10Figure 11Figure 12
Models
Weather
Finance (7 days)
Finance (30 days)
MCQ. ↑
Pre. ↑
3-way ↑
5-way ↑
MSE ↓
3-way ↑
5-way ↑
MSE ↓
TimeOmni-1-7B
41.67
51.40
40.76
34.97
0.622
37.39
20.00
1.490
ITFormer-7B
57.14
36.26
40.14
33.57
0.174
51.03
31.72
0.907
ChatTS-7B
56.21
28.79
19.71
16.09
2.047
19.38
13.46
3.342
PATRA-7B
60.46
52.04
63.33
60.80
0.191
54.39
43.70
0.822
TS-LLM (Pre-align)
67.24
57.17
68.19
57.82
0.187
60.29
41.51
0.837
Table 7: Out-of-domain results on reasoning tasks. Red / blue indicate the 1st/2nd best results.
Method
TimeSeriesExam
CaTS-Bench
Ano. Det.
Causality
Noise
Pattern
Similarity
Caption Ret.
TS Ret.
Amp. Comp.
Mean Comp.
Original Paper
28.0
52.0
26.0
47.0
45.0
44.0
29.0
43.0
35.0
TimeOmni-1
42.6
37.5
56.0
56.4
46.7
57.0
37.0
92.5
67.5
TS-LLM (Pre-align)
49.1
47.2
60.7
61.6
55.0
52.0
46.0
82.5
77.5
Table 8: Results on TimeSeriesExam and CaTS-Bench. Bold indicates the best results.
Appendix figures & tables21 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Split
Source
Samples
Task Type
Metric
Training
ChatTS
∼ 105K
Temporal Perception
–
Evaluation A
Manual
525
Categorical / Numerical
F1 / Relative Acc.
Evaluation B
Synthetic
1,616
Categorical / Numerical
F1 / Relative Acc.
Appendix
Table 9: Statistics of the Stage 1 perception datasets.
Source
Task
Total Samples
Train Samples
Test Samples
Metric
TSQA
Forecasting
42,557
34,046
8,511
MSE
Imputation
38,657
30,926
7,731
MSE
Anomaly Detection
37,000
29,600
7,400
Accuracy
Classification
37,000
29,600
7,400
Accuracy
TS Instruct
Classification
2,945
2,356
589
Accuracy
Total
–
158,159
126,528
31,631
–
Appendix
Table 10: Detailed statistics of the Stage 2 task-solving datasets.
Split
Source
# Samples
Metric
Training
TSQA Reasoning QA
26,163
–
ChatTS TSEvol + Instruct Follow
29,320
–
TSCognition
32,869
–
TS Instruct
12,852
–
Evaluation A
Binary QA
4,547
Accuracy
Multiple-Choice QA
Accuracy
Appendix
Table 11: Detailed statistics of the Stage 3 high-level reasoning datasets.
Figure 10: Distribution of TSCognition samples across eight domains and five hierarchical tasks.
Tasks
Variable Numbers
Time Series Length
Choices
Min
Max
Avg.
Min
Max
Avg.
Min
Max
Avg.
Decoding Task
4
5
4.7
437
982
742
4
5
4.7
Grounding Task
3
6
4.4
656
1018
871
4
5
4.3
Inferring Task
3
6
5.1
882
1059
912
4
5
4.6
Extrapolating Task
3
6
5.2
601
1052
846
4
5
4.5
Acting Task
4
6
5.5
468
1047
795
4
5
4.2
Appendix
Table 12: Task-level statistics of time series in TSCognition.
Category
Samples
Anomaly Detection
108
Causality
72
Noise Understanding
84
Pattern Recognition
362
Similarity Analysis
120
Total
746
Appendix
Table 13: Statistics of TimeSeriesExam.
Task
Samples
Caption Retrieval
100
Time Series Retrieval
100
Amplitude Comparison
40
Mean Comparison
40
Total
280
Appendix
Table 14: Statistics of CaTS-Bench used in our evaluation.
Domain
Evaluation Tasks
Weather
MCQA / Prediction
Finance (7 days)
3-way / 5-way / Forecasting
Finance (30 days)
3-way / 5-way / Forecasting
Appendix
Table 15: Evaluation settings of MTBench.
Method
Trend
Season
Noise
Local
Corr.
Clus.
Cate.
Num.
Cate.
Num.
Cate.
Num.
Cate.
Num.
Cate.
Cate.
Pre-align
0.937
0.865
0.911
0.872
0.857
0.534
0.799
0.700
0.831
0.783
GPT-4o (Text)
0.664
0.839
0.751
0.546
0.654
0.287
0.237
0.165
0.361
0.294
GPT-4o (Vision)
0.691
0.423
0.907
0.582
0.659
0.361
0.415
0.302
0.394
0.411
Post-align
0.922
0.880
0.931
0.834
0.900
0.479
0.824
0.733
0.771
0.804
Appendix
Table 16: Detailed categorical and numerical perception results.
Model
Training Setting
15%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Pre-align
Stage 3 Only
0.414
0.464
0.527
0.586
0.619
Mixed Training
0.479
0.520
0.583
0.673
0.689
Stage (1 → 2 → 3)
0.528
0.574
0.598
0.664
0.710
Post-align
Stage 3 Only
0.403
0.453
0.524
0.585
0.617
Mixed Training
0.461
0.502
0.570
0.664
0.678
Stage (1 → 2 → 3)
0.520
0.561
0.614
0.680
0.701
Appendix
Table 17: Detailed reasoning accuracy under different Stage 3 training data scales.
Training Setting
Data Scale
Evaluation Performance
Relative Perf.
Full Progressive
Stage 1
40%
0.613
–
0.743
55%
0.662
–
70%
0.738
98.3%
85%
0.745
–
100%
0.751
100%
Stage (1 → 2)
40%
0.542
–
0.684
Appendix
Table 18: Detailed stage-wise performance under increasing training data scales. For Stage (1 → 2), Stage 1 is fixed at its 70% saturation point; for Stage (1 → 2 → 3), Stages 1 and 2 are both fixed at 70%. Bold denotes the identified local saturation points.
Model
Trend
Season
Noise
Local
Multivariate
Cate.
Num.
Cate.
Num.
Cate.
Num.
Cate.
Num.
Corr.
Clus.
Pre-align
0.894
0.843
0.859
0.843
0.822
0.558
0.786
0.727
0.788
0.761
Post-align
0.873
0.846
0.892
0.834
0.861
0.506
0.752
0.709
0.755
0.747
Appendix
Table 19: Stage 1 perception results on Qwen3-1.7B.
Model
Training Setting
Fore. MSE ↓
Impu. MSE ↓
Ano. Det. Acc. ↑
Class. Acc. ↑
Qwen3-1.7B
No Fine-tuning
1.884
0.0312
0.303
0.234
Pre-align
Stage 1 Only
1.813
0.0218
0.548
0.421
Stage 2 Only
1.412
0.0151
0.651
0.542
Stage (1 → 2)
1.438
0.0144
0.684
0.576
Post-align
Stage 1 Only
1.782
0.0235
0.574
0.408
Stage 2 Only
1.469
0.0162
0.648
0.507
Appendix
Table 20: Stage 2 task-solving results on Qwen3-1.7B.
Model
Training Setting
Decoding
Grounding
Inferring
Extrapolating
Acting
Pre-align
Stage 3 Only
65.8
63.7
54.2
53.6
46.6
Stage (1 → 3)
73.8
76.9
60.7
58.9
49.4
Stage (2 → 3)
74.9
69.5
65.6
58.1
52.1
Stage (1 → 2 → 3)
78.1
74.2
63.1
65.2
55.6
Post-align
Stage 3 Only
62.9
62.8
53.1
55.4
47.7
Stage (1 → 3)
72.5
70.3
59.4
61.5
50.9
Appendix
Table 21: Stage 3 reasoning results on Evaluation Set B using Qwen3-1.7B.
Configuration
Setting
Primary backbone
Qwen3-4B
Additional backbone
Qwen3-1.7B
GPUs
2 × NVIDIA A800
Framework
PyTorch + HuggingFace Transformers
Distributed training
DeepSpeed + Accelerate
Precision
bfloat16
Appendix
Table 22: Implementation and training configurations used in our experiments.
Time series analysis has recently been coupled with Large Language Models (LLMs) to leverage their reasoning and world knowledge capabilities, yet gains remain limited. We attribute this to a fundamental mismatch between existing task formulations and LLM strengths: most settings reduce time series understanding to curve-fitting systems, focusing on low-level prediction while ignoring the semantic, contextual, and reasoning-intensive nature of real-world temporal decision-making.To address these limitations, we introduce TSCognition, a multimodal benchmark for multi-dimensional time series reasoning. It collects real-world time series and textual information from 15 public sources and constructs approximately 41K QA samples around five cognitive reasoning tasks: Decoding, Grounding, Inferring, Extrapolating, and Acting. Building on this, we further propose TSAlign, a unified framework that encodes time series into compact patch-level representations and aligns them with semantic directions in the LLM embedding space via gated residual injection and multivariate fusion.Experiments show that TSAlign outperforms existing LLM, VLM, and time series QA baselines on TSCognition and the publicly available TimerBed benchmark while substantially reducing computational cost.Code is available at: https://github.com/EIT-NLP/CognitiveTSR
Xin Qiu, Junlong Tong, Yao Zhang +3
Institute of Digital Twin, Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo · Zhejiang University · Munich Center for Machine Learning, LMU
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success in general-purpose reasoning. However, they still struggle to understand and reason about time series data, which limits their effectiveness in decision-making scenarios that depend on temporal dynamics. In this paper, we propose Thoth, the first family of mid-trained LLMs with general-purpose time series understanding capabilities. As a pivotal intermediate stage, mid-training achieves task- and domain-agnostic alignment between time series and natural language, for which we construct Book-of-Thoth, a high-quality, time-series-centric mid-training corpus. Book-of-Thoth enables both time-series-to-text and text-to-time-series generation, equipping LLMs with a foundational grasp of temporal patterns. To better evaluate advanced reasoning capabilities, we further present KnoTS, a novel benchmark of knowledge-intensive time series understanding, designed for joint reasoning over temporal patterns and domain knowledge. Extensive experiments demonstrate that mid-training with Book-of-Thoth enables Thoth to significantly outperform its base model and advanced LLMs across a range of time series question answering benchmarks. Moreover, Thoth exhibits superior capabilities when fine-tuned under data scarcity, underscoring the effectiveness of mid-training for time series understanding. Code is available at: https://github.com/thuml/Thoth.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning and instruction-following capabilities, making them potentially powerful tools for time-series analysis. However, time series lie outside their native textual modality, raising a fundamental question: how should time series be represented so that LLMs can reason about them effectively? Existing work typically serializes raw numerical sequences or fine-tunes pre-trained LLMs on time-series data. These approaches place the burden of extracting temporal structure directly on the LLM, creating a modality mismatch that often degrades performance on long sequences and introduces substantial computational overhead. In this work, we introduce Time-Series-to-Structured-Program representation (T2SP), a deterministic, training-free method that represents a time series as a structured symbolic program. T2SP decomposes time series into trends, periods, and salient events, expressing them in a program-friendly format aligned with the textual and code-like modalities on which LLMs are natively trained. By shifting temporal-structure extraction from the model to the representation itself, T2SP enables off-the-shelf LLMs to leverage their existing reasoning capabilities for time-series understanding. We evaluate T2SP on three reasoning tasks -- editing, captioning, and question answering -- where it consistently improves performance, reduces reasoning time, and lowers failure rates compared with raw-string representations. Our results demonstrate that T2SP provides an effective interface between time series and LLMs.