arXiv:2509.05215cs.CLcs.LG2025-09被引 8

构建统一基准评估模型描述时间序列结构的能力。

BEDTime: A Unified Benchmark for Automatically Describing Time Series

  • 提出识别、区分、生成时间序列描述的新任务
  • 17个先进模型在五数据集三模态上测试,表现参差
  • 视觉语言模型表现最优,纯语言模型最差

近期研究提出复杂的多模态模型以处理时间序列与语言,声称在时间序列推理和跨模态问答等复杂任务中表现优异。然而,这些模型忽略了基础能力的验证。本文提出核心问题:现有模型能多好地描述时间序列的结构特征?为此,我们主张成功模型应具备识别、区分和生成单变量时间序列描述的能力。据此,我们构建了 extbf{BEDTime} 基准,涵盖 extbf{五个数据集},并跨 extbf{三种模态} 进行重构。对 extbf{17 个前沿模型} 的评估显示:(1)专为时间序列-语言任务设计的模型表现不佳;(2)视觉-语言模型表现较优;(3)仅语言模型表现最差;(4)所有方法在多种真实世界鲁棒性测试下均显脆弱。结果质疑了以往工作的宣称,并为多模态时间序列建模指明发展方向。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Recent works propose complex multi-modal models that handle both time series and language, ultimately claiming high performance on complex tasks like time series reasoning and cross-modal question answering. However, they skip foundational evaluations that such complex models should have mastered. So we ask a simple question: \textit{How well can recent models describe structural properties of time series?} To answer this, we propose that successful models should be able to \textit{recognize}, \textit{differentiate}, and \textit{generate} descriptions of univariate time series. We then create \textbf{\benchmark}, a benchmark to assess these novel tasks, that comprises \textbf{five datasets} reformatted across \textbf{three modalities}. In evaluating \textbf{17 state-of-the-art models}, we find that (1) surprisingly, dedicated time series-language models fall short, despite being designed for similar tasks, (2) vision language models are quite capable, (3) language only methods perform worst, despite many lauding their potential, and (4) all approaches are clearly fragile to a range of real world robustness tests, indicating directions for future work. Together, our findings critique prior works' claims and provide avenues for advancing multi-modal time series modeling.

时间序列多模态评测基准

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。