Sequence / Foundations
verifiedTime Series Forecasting
Predict what a measured quantity does next — demand, load, price, temperature. What makes it its own problem rather than regression with a clock is that the training and test sets are separated by time rather than by sampling, so every mistake about what stays the same is a mistake the model cannot see until it is deployed.
Evaluation is where most of the errors live. Shuffling the split leaks the future into training, a model tuned on one period silently absorbs its regime, and the naive baseline — predict the last value — beats a surprising fraction of published deep models. The 2022 result that a single linear layer matched several transformer architectures on the standard benchmarks was less about transformers than about how weak those benchmarks were.
Fit ŷ sub t+1:t+h = f(y sub 1:t ) with the split ordered rather than random, so validation must roll forward rather than sample. Error grows with the horizon h for any model, because uncertainty compounds — which is why a comparison at one horizon says little about another, and why reporting a single number for a multi-step forecast hides where it failed.
Loss over 2000 training steps, starting near 7.2. It falls to about 1.93, with 92% of the total improvement arriving in the first half. A second line shows held-out, ending higher at about 2.20.
Training error against error on a period the model never saw. Drag the regime shift up to watch the second curve leave the first — the split here is time, so this gap is the only honest estimate of how it will do.
Reviewed by opendroid · 2026-08-18
- arXiv:2205.13504 — Are Transformers Effective for Time Series Forecasting?
- arXiv:2012.07436 — Informer: Beyond Efficient Transformer for Long Sequence Time-Series Forecasting