Non-Stationary Time Series Forecasting

Latest papers 63

Jan 30, 2026cs.LG

Learning-to-Defer in Non-Stationary Time Series via Switching State-Space Models

Learning-to-defer (L2D) lets a predictor decide, at each round, whether to issue its own forecast or pay for an expert's. In non-stationary time series this decision must keep adapting, although deployment reveals only the consulted expert's forecast while a historical archive records every expert with the target. L2D-SLDS learns from this archive a switching state-space model of the target and all expert forecasts, whose shared and expert-specific states describe how experts move together and apart. Its predictive law supplies the internal forecast and the expected cost of every consultation, which a greedy router minimizes, and one consultation also updates the beliefs about unconsulted and unavailable experts. We prove sublinear regret against a changing conditional-risk oracle without exploration, when the candidate models are accurate and either the archive separates them or live feedback reveals cost differences. On three real datasets, L2D-SLDS has the lowest cost among eight bandit routers and adapts its consultation rate to the fee.
Nov 23, 2025cs.LG

KAN vs LSTM Performance in Time Series Forecasting

This study presents a controlled comparison of baseline Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KAN), implemented via PyKAN, and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks for the forecasting of stochastic, non-stationary financial time series. The two architectures are assessed in terms of predictive accuracy, computational efficiency, and interpretability, with accuracy measured by the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) in normalised feature space. Under a direct multi-output forecasting protocol, LSTM attains clearly superior accuracy across all tested prediction horizons, consistent with its well-established effectiveness for sequential data modelling. Baseline KAN, although offering theoretical interpretability through the Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem, exhibits substantially higher error rates and limited practical applicability for time series forecasting in its standard form. Several specialised temporal variants -- including Temporal KAN and Time-Frequency KAN -- have since been proposed to address these sequential modelling limitations, but they lie outside the scope of the present study. KAN is observed to converge faster during training under the configurations tested, although direct runtime comparisons are constrained by methodological factors. These findings support the adoption of LSTM for accuracy-critical financial forecasting and establish an empirical baseline for standard KAN on stochastic sequential data, motivating further investigation of temporally-aware KAN architectures. The study benchmarks baseline KAN against baseline LSTM only; the results do not extend to specialised KAN variants designed for sequential data, nor to the broader family of temporal models.
Apr 2, 2025cs.LG

DRAN: A Distribution and Relation Adaptive Network for Spatio-temporal Forecasting

Spatio-temporal forecasting remains challenging under non-stationary environments because both data distributions and spatial relations evolve over time. Temporal normalization and de-normalization are widely used to mitigate distribution shifts, but they may distort inter-node relationships and thereby impair spatial dependency modeling. To address these issues, we propose the Distribution and Relation Adaptive Network (DRAN) for spatio-temporal forecasting. DRAN incorporates a Spatial Factor Learner (SFL) module, which enables effective normalization and de-normalization while preserving spatial dependencies in spatio-temporal systems. To model evolving spatial interactions, DRAN further proposes the Dynamic-Static Fusion Learner (DSFL) module. DSFL decomposes features into static and dynamic components and adaptively fuses them according to input variability. Experiments on six benchmark datasets show that DRAN outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Additional analyses demonstrate that SFL consistently reduces spatial-relation distortion across multiple normalization schemes, whereas DSFL captures complementary static and dynamic dependencies and adjusts their contributions according to temporal variability.