When Does Online Adaptation Pay on the Edge? A Leakage-Free Evaluation of Warmup, Learning-Rate Selection, and Resource Trade-offs for Time-Series Forecasting
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Online adaptation can help edge time-series forecasting under distribution drift, but its measured benefit is sensitive to evaluation choices. We study six public multivariate streams, including building-sensor and smart-meter data, under a leakage-free streaming protocol. We identify two additional sources of comparison bias. First, the warmup budget of the static baseline has a two-sided effect: insufficient warmup undertrains the baseline, whereas excessive warmup can degrade its pre-drift generalization. Across six dataset-backbone settings, the estimated adaptation benefit changes by 3.0 to 18.8 percentage points (pp) over the 1,000-20,000-step warmup range. Second, comparing SGD with momentum (SGD+m) and Adam at a shared default learning rate conflates optimizer quality with rate sensitivity. We select both the warmup budget and each optimizer's online rate using a held-out pre-drift validation slice without accessing test data. Under this validation-only procedure, Adam outperforms SGD+m in 310 of 360 evaluated cells, while 4 Adam cells remain below the static baseline. We further characterize accuracy against adaptation-state memory and A100-measured per-update latency for full, head-only, and calibration-based adaptation. In the evaluated PatchTST frontier settings, several parameter-efficient variants are nondominated on the adaptation-state-memory axis. Smart-meter analyses also show that reported gains depend on meter-selection rules. These findings support a validation-only commissioning procedure, while target-device latency and energy remain to be measured. Code, data, and all reported numbers: https://github.com/keiotakmin/tsf-edge-adaptation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.
Builds on
18 of 27 references.
References · 18
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2020Informer: Beyond Efficient Transformer for Long Sequence Time-Series Forecastingcited by 2,169
- 2022A Time Series is Worth 64 Words: Long-term Forecasting with Transformerscited by 2,039
- 2022Are Transformers Effective for Time Series Forecasting?cited by 1,424
- 2020Descending through a Crowded Valley - Benchmarking Deep Learning Optimizerscited by 119
- 2023OneNet: Enhancing Time Series Forecasting Models under Concept Drift by Online Ensemblingcited by 74
- 2023On Pitfalls of Test-Time Adaptationcited by 64
- 2022Learning Fast and Slow for Online Time Series Forecastingcited by 45
- 2025Battling the Non-stationarity in Time Series Forecasting via Test-time Adaptationcited by 35
- 2023Calibration of Time-Series Forecasting: Detecting and Adapting Context-Driven Distribution Shiftcited by 25
- 2024Proactive Model Adaptation Against Concept Drift for Online Time Series Forecastingcited by 19
- 2025Accurate Parameter-Efficient Test-Time Adaptation for Time Series Forecastingcited by 14
6 more
- 2024Addressing Concept Shift in Online Time Series Forecasting: Detect-then-Adaptcited by 13
- 2026The Forecast After the Forecast: A Post-Processing Shift in Time Seriescited by 10
- 2024Act Now: A Novel Online Forecasting Framework for Large-Scale Streaming Datacited by 6
- 2026Towards Principled Test-Time Adaptation for Time Series Forecastingcited by 5
- 2026Adapt Only When It Pays: Budgeted Decision-Loss Priority for Delayed Online Time-Series Adaptationcited by 2
- 2025On-Device Training of PV Power Forecasting Models in a Smart Meter for Grid Edge Intelligencecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.