Organizations: Institute of Advanced Technology University of Science and Technology of China Hefei, China · Department of Automation University of Science and Technology of China Hefei, China
Irregular multivariate time series forecasting (IMTSF) requires capturing temporal dynamics and cross-variable dependencies from sparse, asynchronous observations. Existing methods often rely on learned temporal encoders, coupling historical representation construction with model optimisation and repeatedly processing the same observations. We propose CTLite, a lightweight forecasting framework that decouples historical summarisation from learned prediction. Specifically, a parameter-free continuous-time moment encoder summarises local levels and trends at multiple temporal scales while suppressing poorly supported slope estimates. A compact readout combines damped local extrapolation with a low-rank cross-variable correction that accounts for observation freshness, target availability, and forecast horizon. Since the historical summaries are independent of trainable parameters and forecast queries, they can be reused across optimisation steps and repeated predictions for an unchanged history without altering predictions or parameter gradients. Experiments on four real-world benchmarks show that CTLite achieves the best or second-best mean MSE and MAE among the evaluated methods with only 88-2,537 trainable parameters. Under matched GPU workloads at batch size 32, CTLite reduces inference latency by 18.6-87.3% compared with the latest models, including the cost of historical encoding. Reusing summaries further reduces total runtime by approximately 52% over 16 forecast calls on the same history compared with recomputing the encoder for every call, including the initial encoding cost. The code is at: https://github.com/SSMa913/NICLab-CTLite.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Compact prediction and historical reuse. (a) Test MSE normalised by last-value forecasting on the same test records. (b) Time for 16 forecast calls on one unchanged batch, normalised by recomputing the history for every call. Reuse includes one initial encoding. Bars show five-seed means and sample Standard Deviation (SD).
Fig. 2: Overall CTLite framework. F and L denote fixed and learned computations, respectively.
Dataset
HumanActivity
USHCN
PhysioNet †
MIMIC
Metric
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
PrimeNet
4.2507 ± 0.0041
1.7018 ± 0.0011
0.4930 ± 0.0015
0.4954 ± 0.0018
0.8128 ± 0.00004
0.6977 ± 0.00006
0.9073 ± 0.0001
0.6614 ± 0.0001
NeuralFlows
0.1722 ± 0.0090
0.3150 ± 0.0094
0.2087 ± 0.0258
0.3157 ± 0.0187
0.3910 ± 0.00303
0.4360 ± 0.00201
0.6085 ± 0.0101
0.5306 ± 0.0066
CRU
0.1387 ± 0.0073
0.2607 ± 0.0092
0.2168 ± 0.0162
0.3180 ± 0.0248
0.5917 ± 0.00340
0.5604 ± 0.00199
0.5895 ± 0.0092
0.5151 ± 0.0048
mTAN
0.0993 ± 0.0026
0.2219 ± 0.0047
0.5561 ± 0.2020
0.5015 ± 0.0968
0.3711 ± 0.00459
0.4231 ± 0.00356
0.9408 ± 0.1126
0.6755 ± 0.0459
SeFT
1.3786 ± 0.0024
0.9762 ± 0.0007
0.3345 ± 0.0022
0.4083 ± 0.0084
0.7912 ± 0.00223
0.6860 ± 0.00079
0.9230 ± 0.0015
0.6628 ± 0.0008
TABLE I: Forecasting performance on four IMTS datasets (mean ± standard deviation). Bold and underline mark the best and second-best means. † denotes repaired PhysioNet.
Dataset
N
Records (Samples)
Observed targets
Train
Val
Test
Train
Val
Test
HumanActivity
12
949
193
218
25,872
5,205
5,910
USHCN
5
901
101
112
2,964
334
368
PhysioNet
36
9,703
1,079
1,199
217,124
24,061
27,008
MIMIC
96
17,212
1,913
2,125
187,419
20,874
23,015
TABLE II: Split sizes and observed target counts.
Dataset
Model
Params ↓
Train (ms) ↓
Infer (ms) ↓
Throughput ↑
Train MiB ↓
Infer MiB ↓
HumanActivity
APN
28,789
8.905 ± 0.034
3.530 ± 0.021
9.065 ± 0.055
463.83 ± 1.00
229.90 ± 0.41
GraFITi
249,409
8.887 ± 0.053
4.205 ± 0.007
7.610 ± 0.012
280.21 ± 1.08
62.92 ± 0.31
CTLite
365
2.232 ± 0.017
0.665 ± 0.008
48.119 ± 0.579
18.46 ± 0.04
10.24 ± 0.03
USHCN
APN
1,970
3.440 ± 0.024
1.062 ± 0.006
30.119 ± 0.175
176.30 ± 2.71
69.54 ± 1.04
GraFITi
495,617
8.516 ± 0.114
3.940 ± 0.055
8.122 ± 0.113
339.13 ± 8.80
137.81 ± 3.01
CTLite
88
2.205 ± 0.016
0.654 ± 0.003
48.926 ± 0.250
17.70 ± 0.01
9.55 ± 0.01
TABLE III: Matched efficiency at batch size 32 (mean ± standard deviation). Throughput is in thousands of records/s, and memory is peak allocated MiB. Bold is best, underline second best.
Dataset
Fixed rates Λ
r
H
Learning rate
Batch size
Weight decay
Params
HumanActivity
{0,1,4,16,64}
1
8
0.01
16
0.0001
365
USHCN
{0,8}
1
2
0.0003
4
0.01
88
PhysioNet
{0,2,8,32}
4
4
0.001
64
0.0003
889
MIMIC
{0,2,8,32,128}
4
8
0.001
32
0.0001
2,537
TABLE IV: Final model and training settings. All tasks use constant learning rates and raw Adam weights.
Dataset
Seed
Val MSE
Val MAE
Test MSE
Test MAE
HumanActivity
2024
0.045863
0.118920
0.042599
0.117128
2025
0.046127
0.119902
0.042174
0.116331
2026
0.047570
0.120034
0.044177
0.117122
2027
0.046258
0.118295
0.041547
0.116031
2028
0.045992
0.119011
0.042301
0.116980
USHCN
2024
0.353462
0.308676
0.166031
0.272905
TABLE V: Validation and test errors of the complete model by seed.
Fig. 4: Full per-request CPU inference without cached histories. Bars show five-seed mean median latency, and sample SD. The log axis accommodates model differences. Input tensors are CPU resident; disk IO and process startup are excluded.
Fig. 5: Batch scaling. Full inference above and full training steps below. Error bars show sample SD over five seeds.
Dataset
Encode once
Cached inference
Cached train step
HumanActivity
0.370 ± 0.004
0.336 ± 0.004
1.817 ± 0.024
USHCN
0.371 ± 0.003
0.331 ± 0.004
1.786 ± 0.006
PhysioNet
0.376 ± 0.008
0.341 ± 0.009
1.801 ± 0.038
MIMIC
0.373 ± 0.005
0.331 ± 0.003
1.806 ± 0.031
TABLE VI: Historical encoding and computation with a stored summary (ms).
Dataset
HumanActivity
USHCN
PhysioNet
MIMIC
Variant
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
Full model
0.04256 ± 0.00098
0.11672 ± 0.00051
0.16482 ± 0.00084
0.27068 ± 0.00241
0.28762 ± 0.00017
0.35265 ± 0.00096
0.40476 ± 0.00083
0.38438 ± 0.00087
No cross residual
0.04259 ± 0.00080
0.11672 ± 0.00131
0.16475 ± 0.00093
0.26739 ± 0.00097
0.28982 ± 0.00008
0.35309 ± 0.00091
0.42632 ± 0.00062
0.39337 ± 0.00052
Index/no slope
0.04287 ± 0.00060
0.11730 ± 0.00114
0.16000 ± 0.00064
0.26774 ± 0.00265
0.28840 ± 0.00015
0.35295 ± 0.00114
0.40187 ± 0.00135
0.38406 ± 0.00183
TABLE VII: Ablation studies. Bold marks the lowest error in each column.