Do Time Series Foundation Model Benchmarks Hide Regime-Dependent Failures? Evidence from Traffic Speed Forecasting
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Standard benchmarks evaluate time series foundation models (TSFMs) using aggregate metrics, but these can mask severe failures in critical operating regimes. We introduce regime-stratified evaluation and apply it to three TSFMs on two standard traffic speed benchmarks. Traffic exhibits abrupt regime switching between free-flow and congested states, producing bimodal speed distributions during transitions. When we stratify by traffic regime, both accuracy and prediction-interval coverage degrade sharply during transitions: transition-regime MAE reaches 11 mph (versus 3 mph overall), and empirical coverage of 90% prediction intervals drops as low as 55%. These failures are invisible in aggregate metrics because free-flow observations dominate the sample. A simple historical conditional baseline (sampling from per-sensor training distributions) achieves better transition coverage than any TSFM, but has far worse overall accuracy. We propose bimodal mixture augmentation (BMA), a post-hoc method that combines TSFM forecasts with historical distributional knowledge, approaching the historical baseline's transition coverage while preserving the TSFM's accuracy. Our results suggest that TSFM benchmarks should incorporate regime-aware evaluation to surface failures that aggregate metrics hide.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jun 2026.
Builds on
11 of 17 references.
References · 11
- 2017Spatio-Temporal Graph Convolutional Networks: A Deep Learning Framework for Traffic Forecastingcited by 1,125
- 2024Chronos: Learning the Language of Time Seriescited by 712
- 2024Unified Training of Universal Time Series Forecasting Transformerscited by 588
- 2021Adaptive Conformal Inference Under Distribution Shiftcited by 360
- 2024GIFT-Eval: A Benchmark For General Time Series Forecasting Model Evaluationcited by 188
- 2024TSFM-Bench: A Comprehensive and Unified Benchmark of Foundation Models for Time Series Forecastingcited by 55
- 2025Relational Conformal Prediction for Correlated Time Seriescited by 11
- 2023Adaptive Modeling of Uncertainties for Traffic Forecastingcited by 5
- 2023Probabilistic Traffic Forecasting with Dynamic Regressioncited by 4
- 2025Beyond Accuracy: Are Time Series Foundation Models Well-Calibrated?cited by 2
- 2025Adaptive Regime-Switching Forecasts with Distribution-Free Uncertainty: Deep Switching State-Space Models Meet Conformal Predictioncited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026When Should Active RAG Retrieve? A Budget-Aware Evaluation of Utility, Calibration, and Costcited by 2
- 2026Toward User-Conditioned Evaluation of Personal LLM Agents under Temporal Interventionscited by 1
- 2026Evidence-Unit Fairness and the Limits of Query-Adaptive Sparse-Dense Fusion in Financial Document Retrievalcited by 1
- 2026From Non-Convex Self-Concordant Regularization to Scalable Quasi-Newton Training of PINNscited by 0
- 2026Noise Floor Audit for Agent Benchmarkscited by 0
- 2026Noise Floor Audit for Agent Benchmarks23 Aug 2026
- 2026From Non-Convex Self-Concordant Regularization to Scalable Quasi-Newton Training of PINNs4 Aug 2026
- 2026Evidence-Unit Fairness and the Limits of Query-Adaptive Sparse-Dense Fusion in Financial Document Retrieval31 Jul 2026
- 2026When Should Active RAG Retrieve? A Budget-Aware Evaluation of Utility, Calibration, and Cost27 Jul 2026
- 2026Toward User-Conditioned Evaluation of Personal LLM Agents under Temporal Interventions20 Jul 2026