Organizations: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China · Jinan University Guangzhou, China · The University of Chicago Chicago, IL, USA · South China University of Technology Guangzhou, China
Most long-horizon forecasters emit the complete future in one pass. We ask whether a compact operator can instead be reused to emit contiguous future blocks, trading stored parameters for sequential computation. Recursive Functional Decomposition (RFD) factorizes the horizon mapping into three parameter-shared block predictions. The blocks occupy disjoint future intervals and are concatenated, not added as trend, seasonal, or residual components, and each emitted block joins the rolling context that conditions the next application. In controlled three-seed experiments, removing forward feedback hurts all four evaluated datasets while stopping gradients through it changes little, so the useful signal is the evolving forecast state itself; reapplying the shared operator helps consistently, but by less than widening it. The model uses 0.08--0.46M parameters, yet its sequential channel-wise execution is slower and more memory-intensive than an iterative baseline at high channel count. In a frozen long-context evaluation against ten strong baseline families, RFD records lower test error in 23 of 24 cells; the comparison is cross-protocol, with RFD using 512/720-step context and the baselines using 96.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. One-shot widening versus parameter-shared blockwise rollout. Direct prediction grows capacity through a wider single pass; RFD reuses one compact gated operator over K=3 stages, appending each emitted block to the rolling context and concatenating the blocks into the forecast. Two side-by-side panels. Left: direct prediction maps the history through stacked wide Transformer blocks to the full horizon in one pass, with capacity growing through width. Right: RFD applies a small shared gated-Transformer operator three times; each application emits an H/3-step block, each block is appended to a rolling context that conditions the next stage, and the blocks are concatenated and re-anchored into the forecast within 0.08–0.46M shared parameters.
Figure 2. Traffic rollout ( L=512 , H=192 ); each stage appends one 64-step block. Four plots show one Traffic example. The first compares the complete blockwise forecast with the ground truth; the next three show the forecast growing from one to three contiguous blocks as the rolling context advances.
Figure 3. The RFD construction. The normalized history is right-aligned into 48-step patches; one shared recursive operator (shared linear head and one gated pre-LN block, identity at initialization) is applied K=3 times, each application emitting an H/3 -step block that re-enters the rolling context; the blocks are concatenated and re-anchored, and training minimizes the weighted prefix TFMAE. Pipeline diagram in three sections. Left: the normalized history is patched into 48-step segments and linearly embedded with positions into per-channel patch tokens. Middle: a shared recursive operator applied at stages k = 1 to 3, containing a shared linear head and one gated pre-LayerNorm Transformer block with four-head attention and a feed-forward network, initialized as the identity, emitting one horizon block of H/3 steps per stage. Right: the three blocks are concatenated along time into the normalized forecast, re-anchored with the normalization statistics, and the parameter footprint compares RFD's 0.08–0.46M parameters with ReNF's 16.4M on ETTm1.
Dataset
RFD
WPMixer
TimeMixer
PatchTST
iTransformer
DLinear
FEDformer
SparseTSF
FITS
TimeXer
TQNet
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
ETTh1
0.122
0.268
0.078
0.214
0.074
0.209
0.081
0.220
0.077
0.213
0.109
0.252
0.104
0.250
0.091
0.235
0.088
0.230
0.077
0.216
0.076
0.211
ETTh2
0.190
0.341
0.192
0.346
0.202
0.353
0.201
0.353
0.195
0.349
0.219
0.364
0.204
0.350
0.260
0.408
0.235
0.383
0.204
0.354
0.190
0.342
ETTm1
0.054
0.172
0.053
0.173
0.053
0.172
0.054
0.174
0.056
0.177
0.066
0.188
0.064
0.196
0.055
0.179
0.053
0.174
0.056
0.176
0.053
0.172
ETTm2
0.120
0.255
0.122
0.257
0.123
0.260
0.123
0.261
0.133
0.270
0.125
0.261
0.128
0.269
0.136
0.282
0.121
0.260
0.124
0.261
0.121
0.256
Weather
0.647
0.569
0.657
0.574
0.648
0.572
0.656
0.574
0.624
0.558
0.714
0.590
0.843
0.704
0.695
0.605
0.653
0.580
0.606
0.551
0.650
0.571
Table 1. Univariate test MSE/MAE, averaged over four horizons at L=96 .
Dataset
RFD
WPMixer
TimeMixer
PatchTST
iTransformer
DLinear
FEDformer
SparseTSF
FITS
TimeXer
TQNet
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
ETTh1
0.455
0.448
0.442
0.434
0.463
0.449
0.464
0.458
0.463
0.451
0.457
0.454
0.443
0.462
0.712
0.572
0.590
0.518
0.459
0.451
0.463
0.443
ETTh2
0.371
0.391
0.388
0.412
0.378
0.404
0.392
0.414
0.393
0.411
0.556
0.514
0.443
0.455
0.442
0.447
0.419
0.428
0.373
0.400
0.375
0.401
ETTm1
0.382
0.388
0.385
0.395
0.392
0.402
0.393
0.407
0.426
0.419
0.403
0.407
0.441
0.455
0.463
0.438
0.416
0.409
0.398
0.407
0.397
0.402
ETTm2
0.274
0.317
0.278
0.323
0.279
0.326
0.289
0.335
0.290
0.333
0.352
0.400
0.307
0.352
0.303
0.341
0.288
0.329
0.283
0.327
0.284
0.327
Weather
0.319
0.330
0.316
0.331
0.318
0.333
0.326
0.336
0.327
0.336
0.332
0.373
0.414
0.442
0.367
0.370
0.348
0.353
0.311
0.330
0.319
0.333
Table 2. Multivariate test MSE/MAE, averaged over four horizons at L=96 .
H=96
H=192
H=336
H=720
ETTh1
RFD
.3737
.4125
.4472
.4613
best baseline
.3749 (WPMixer)
.4209 (FEDformer)
.4666 (WPMixer)
.4968 (WPMixer)
ETTh2
RFD
.2815
.3408
.3635
.4021
best baseline
.2912 (TimeMixer)
.3729 (TQNet)
.4155 (TimeXer)
.4020 (TimeXer)
ETTm1
RFD
.2871
.3208
.3602
.4179
best baseline
.3172 (WPMixer)
.3648 (WPMixer)
.3980 (WPMixer)
.4597 (WPMixer)
Table 3. Long-context test MSE against the strongest baseline per cell from Tables 1 – 2 .
Stage factorization ( dff=128 )
Width ( K=3 )
Dataset
K=1
K=2
K=3
K=4
K=6
dff=16
32
64
128
ETTm1
.3816
.3817
.3814
.3801
.3817
.3900
.3860
.3832
.3814
ETTm2
.1208
.1217
.1216
.1218
.1210
.1234
.1229
.1225
.1216
ETTh2
.2109
.2129
.2134
.2146
.2146
.2147
.2133
.2127
.2134
ETTh1
.6813
.6734
.6702
.6673
.6664
.7482
.6962
.6816
.6702
params (k)
164
152
148
146
144
5
13
42
148
Table 4. RQ2 stage-factorization and width sweeps on the four ETT datasets (three-seed validation MSE).
Figure 4. RQ2 sensitivity across three seeds; error bars show sample standard deviation. Eight line plots in a two-by-four layout. The top row varies stage count and the bottom row varies width for ETTh1, ETTh2, ETTm1, and ETTm2; points show three-seed mean validation MSE with standard-deviation error bars.
A0
A1 (gate open)
A2 (no feedback)
A3 (plain MSE)
Dataset
MSE
MSE
Δ%
MSE
Δ%
MSE
Δ%
ETTm1
.3812
.3810
0.0
.9125
+139.4
.3918
+2.8
ETTm2
.1216
.1203
−1.1
.1552
+27.6
.1269
+4.3
ETTh2
.2134
.2137
+0.1
.2523
+18.2
.2144
+0.5
ETTh1
.6699
.6669
−0.4
1.2057
+80.0
.6631
−1.0
Table 5. RQ3 bundled stress tests on the four ETT datasets; A0 is the full RFD model (three-seed validation MSE).
Figure 5. RQ3 bundled stress tests; error bars show sample standard deviation. Four bar charts for ETTh1, ETTh2, ETTm1, and ETTm2. Each compares the full model, open-gate initialization, unconditioned no-feedback, and final MSE using three-seed mean validation MSE and standard-deviation error bars.
C
Model
params (k)
mem (MiB)
thr (smp/s)
7
RFD ( dff=16 )
4.8
81.3
4788
RFD ( dff=32 )
12.9
82.6
4725
RFD ( dff=64 )
41.5
85.4
4827
RFD ( dff=128 )
147.9
91.7
4798
ReNF (beta)
1101.8
86.4
10310
862
RFD ( dff=16 )
86.8
2067.6
548
Table 6. RQ4 parameter and compute profile ( L=H=96 ).
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
L
dff ( d )
dropout
pe
α
γ
batch
lr
budget
ETTh1
512
2048 (128)
0.7
on
0.00
0.3
128
6×10−4
10 (3)
ETTh2
512
128
0.1
off
0.00
0.3
16
5×10−4
5 (3)
ETTm1
512
2048 (128)
0.5
on
0.20
0.9
64
5×10−4
5 (2)
ETTm2
512
128
0.3
on
0.45
0.9
64
2×10−3
5 (2)
Weather
720
64
0.8
on
0.50
0.1
64
4×10−3
5 (10)
Traffic
512
2048 (128)
0.5
off
0.20
0.9
16
8×10−4
40 (15)
Appendix
Table 7. Frozen RFD recipe per dataset (common to all horizons). The model width d equals min(dff,128) . pe: positional offsets on the rolling window (shared across stages). α : frequency weight of the TFMAE objective. γ : StepLR decay factor (step size 2). Budget: maximum epochs (early-stopping patience). ETTh1 uses the global-standardization variant of the model; all other datasets use anchored normalization.
Table 12. Comprehensive per-horizon test results (univariate S mode, look-back 96; lower is better). RFD is the three-seed mean (2021/2022/2023), each seed evaluated once on the official test split with the validation-selected checkpoint; baseline figures come from official releases or faithful re-implementations. Best in bold, second best underlined.
Dataset
pred_len
RFD
WPMixer
TimeMixer
PatchTST
iTransformer
DLinear
FEDformer
SparseTSF
FITS
TimeXer
TQNet
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
ETTh1
96
0.390
0.400
0.375
0.394
0.402
0.413
0.393
0.413
0.386
0.404
0.389
0.404
0.380
0.422
0.749
0.577
0.469
0.453
0.397
0.412
0.383
0.398
192
0.442
0.434
0.428
0.425
0.452
0.440
0.447
0.439
0.443
0.434
0.438
0.433
0.421
0.447
0.659
0.539
0.531
0.486
0.434
0.436
0.444
0.428
336
0.482
0.457
0.467
0.442
0.497
0.461
0.491
0.473
0.492
0.463
0.488
0.467
0.471
0.475
0.736
0.583
0.615
0.530
0.490
0.461
0.491
0.452
720
0.507
0.501
0.497
0.475
0.500
0.483
0.524
0.506
0.531
0.504
0.513
0.511
0.501
0.502
0.706
0.589
0.743
0.602
0.514
0.496
0.534
0.495
ETTh2
96
0.286
0.331
0.298
0.348
0.291
0.343
0.318
0.361
0.294
0.346
0.342
0.396
0.351
0.392
0.381
0.406
0.317
0.360
0.295
0.342
0.293
0.343
Appendix
Table 13. Comprehensive per-horizon test results (multivariate-to-multivariate M mode, look-back 96; lower is better). RFD is the three-seed mean (2021/2022/2023), each seed evaluated once on the official test split with the validation-selected checkpoint; baseline figures come from official releases or faithful re-implementations. Best in bold, second best underlined.
Linear forecasters have shown competitive accuracy against Transformer-based models in long-term time series forecasting. We study how classical stationary prediction theory can guide parameter sharing for more compact linear forecasters. For centered second-order stationary processes with nonsingular history covariance, the minimum-MSE finite-window linear predictor factors into a Hankel cross-covariance matrix and an inverse Toeplitz covariance matrix. Shared lags and scale cancellation specify this predictor using H+L−1 autocorrelations for lookback L and horizon H. Building on the innovations representation, our Hankel-Toeplitz Forecaster (HTF) learns one impulse response that defines both an inverse filter and a forecast map. We characterize the finite-history correction and, under summability assumptions, bound the excess risk of truncating the true filters. HTF uses H+L−1 trainable coefficients while allowing a full-rank forecasting matrix. Across seven benchmarks at L=336, its horizon-averaged MSE is within 1.2% of Dense Linear on each dataset with 75-229 times fewer trainable parameters.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) complements parametric models with retrieved external evidence. The same idea is attractive for continuous-output regression, but directly reusing retrieved target values is often not robust when samples differ in output level, numerical scale, or local dynamics. Moreover, conventional forecasting pipelines generally use residuals for model optimization and error diagnosis, but do not retain individual historical residual examples as memory that can be accessed at inference time.For multivariate time-series forecasting, we propose RATL, a plug-in residual-retrieval and feedback-correction method. RATL freezes a base forecaster to construct retrieval keys and turns its historical forecast residuals into a train-only memory specific to that base model. At inference time, RATL retrieves residual trajectories from similar historical contexts subject to causal availability constraints, then uses a set-aware router operating over forecast blocks and variables to select and combine these trajectories. Experiments show that historical residuals matched to the current context contain reusable forecasting information and that RATL improves frozen base forecasters in most experimental settings. Ablations further show that learned routing strengthens raw residual feedback, while validation-based correction-strength selection limits residual over-injection.On real-world benchmarks, we use iTransformer as the primary frozen base forecaster, compare against multiple strong forecasting baselines, and test transferability across backbones. The results show that RATL can further improve base-forecaster performance in most settings.Overall, RATL shifts the retrieved object from historical target values to base-model-specific historical forecast errors, providing a plug-in, residual-memory-based paradigm for learned feedback correction in continuous-output forecasting.
Yuchen He, Yueyang Cang, Zhiyuan Ning +2
Department of Automation, Tsinghua University · State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University
Non-autoregressive multi-step forecasting (NAF) enables time series foundation models to predict an entire future horizon in a single forward pass. Despite its strong sequence modeling capabilities, RWKV-7 exhibits long-horizon degradation in our NAF experiments. In this setup, future patches are represented as missing inputs, requiring the recurrent state to evolve across the prediction horizon without new observations. Our analysis of RWKV-7's generalized delta rule suggests a mechanism we term Placeholder Idling Decay (PID): repeated state transitions can attenuate historical information when placeholder-driven writes provide insufficient compensation. Layer-wise analysis reveals reduced state-injection norms in most layers, while transition-matrix norms remain similar between historical and prediction regions, consistent with PID. Motivated by this analysis, we propose HART, a Hybrid Attention-RWKV Time-series Foundation Model that alternates attention and RWKV blocks, combining direct access to historical tokens with recurrent temporal modeling. Controlled experiments on GIFT-Eval and TIME-Benchmark show that HART improves over pure RWKV at medium and long horizons while maintaining comparable short-horizon performance, and achieves better aggregate performance than a comparably sized pure Transformer. With 36M parameters, HART achieves long-horizon MASE comparable to Toto-2.0-1B on GIFT-Eval (0.752 vs. 0.754), using approximately 1/28 of its parameters.
Qingwen Lin, Boyan Xu, Shifeng Xie +3
School of Computer Science, Guangdong University of Technology · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab · LIPADE, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France +2