区分预测形式,才能用对模型
Foundation Model Forecasts: Form and Function
- 按任务需求选择预测形式:点预测、分位数、轨迹集合等
- 三分之二的模型只给点或参数化预测,无法满足多数实际任务
- 提出任务对齐评估框架,强调形式比精度更重要
时间序列基础模型(TSFMs)虽具高预测精度,但实用性不仅取决于精度。预测的形式——点预测、分位数、参数化或轨迹集合——从根本上限制其可支持的业务任务。我们调研近期TSFMs发现,三分之二仅生成点或参数化预测,而许多实际任务需保留时间依赖性的轨迹集合。我们建立预测形式间转换规则:轨迹集合可通过边际化转为简单形式,无需额外假设;反向转换则需通过耦合函数或符合性方法引入时间依赖性。证明边际分布无法决定路径相关事件概率——存在无穷多联合分布共享相同边际却对操作问题给出不同答案。我们将六类核心预测任务映射至最小必要预测形式,并提供任务对齐的评估框架。分析表明,实用价值差异常源于预测形式而非精度。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Time-series foundation models (TSFMs) achieve strong forecast accuracy, yet accuracy alone does not determine practical value. The form of a forecast -- point, quantile, parametric, or trajectory ensemble -- fundamentally constrains which operational tasks it can support. We survey recent TSFMs and find that two-thirds produce only point or parametric forecasts, while many operational tasks require trajectory ensembles that preserve temporal dependence. We establish when forecast types can be converted and when they cannot: trajectory ensembles convert to simpler forms via marginalization without additional assumptions, but the reverse requires imposing temporal dependence through copulas or conformal methods. We prove that marginals cannot determine path-dependent event probabilities -- infinitely many joint distributions share identical marginals but yield different answers to operational questions. We map six fundamental forecasting tasks to minimal sufficient forecast types and provide a task-aligned evaluation framework. Our analysis clarifies when forecast type, not accuracy, differentiates practical utility.
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。