Causal Analysis for Time Series Foundation Models

Transitioning from bespoke time series models towards time series foundation models changes the relationship of model and application from one-to-one to one-to-many. This shift introduces concentration risk as many, potentially high-risk, forecasting applications are exposed to the same biases and failure modes of a single time series foundation model. At the same time, this centralization allows for economies of scale in model development and validation. In this study we investigate how biases and failure modes of time series foundation models can be identified before deployment. We propose a causal analysis framework to investigate the ability of a time series foundation model to preserve time series patterns. To achieve this, we intervene on parameterized synthetic time series generators and measure the corresponding change in model output under ceteris paribus conditions. We apply our causal analysis framework to Chronos-2 and TimesFM-2.5 and test them across six distinct time series patterns. We find safe configurations for trend and harmonic oscillation patterns. The results also indicate a bias in both models towards overestimating persistence, sudden failures for both models against the regime switch pattern and failure for TimesFM-2.5 against the energy-release pattern. Our review of the original works for both models indicates that the findings might be explained by the data used for pretraining. We conclude our study with suggestions for further model development, recommendations for application-specific model selection, and a discussion of limitations and further research directions.

Validation-Frontier Representation Selection under Constrained Observation

AI systems deployed outside clean benchmark settings often rely on observations that are incomplete, unstable, costly, or degraded by monitoring failures. This paper studies representation selection under constrained observation: choosing a state representation when raw accuracy is not the only operational criterion. We propose a validation-frontier selector that combines balanced accuracy with penalties for feature cost, overfit gap, and validation-test instability. In a focused public-tabular benchmark using three scikit-learn datasets, five observation regimes, 45 matched task cells, 720 candidate actions, and 405 representation rows, the adaptive selector improves frontier score over full trace features by 0.025801 while reducing mean feature count by 22.733. Balanced-accuracy difference is small and not statistically significant. A broader offline stress test gives mixed results. The supported claim is therefore bounded: adaptive representation selection can improve a constrained-observation robustness-efficiency frontier in matched benchmark settings, but does not universally dominate trace baselines.

Certifying What Helps Customer-Return Timing: A Screen-and-Confirm Test for Conditioning Signals, and Why Decay Is Nearly Enough

Practitioners enrich customer-return models with ever more signals (lifetime value, category, recency/frequency, calendar, geography), and the temporal-point-process (TPP) literature follows suit with covariate- and external-covariate-conditioned intensities. But does any of it improve the timing, and how would you know? A null ("feature X doesn't help") is only meaningful if the model could have found a signal. We make two contributions--a method and a measurement--to answer this credibly. (i) A screen-and-confirm protocol that certifies whether a candidate signal improves a TPP's event-timing likelihood: a positive control plants a coupling of known strength and confirms the model recovers it, so a real-data null can be read as "no signal" rather than "weak method." The control is validated for categorical and continuous encodings, and on a real clock-driven dataset (NYC taxi hour-of-day). (ii) A model-free ceiling quantifying how little of customer-return timing is point-predictable at all (a single-digit percentage of gap variance from any covariate; returns are near-memoryless). With these we certify a clean result on three public benchmarks (Amazon, Taobao, RetailRocket) and a real marketplace (Thumbtack): the inter-event clock--continuous-time decay, long known to beat frozen-intensity models--is nearly sufficient, and the conditioning the field keeps adding is redundant or harmful on top of it (statistically null on the public benchmarks, at most 0.06 NLL; null to mildly harmful on the marketplace). We do not claim to discover that decay helps; our contribution is the tools that turn "conditioning doesn't help" into a checkable, certified statement--plus an honest-evaluation account of the read-out/leakage pitfalls we hit and retracted.

Latent-Regime Bias Auditing for Volatility Forecasting

Volatility forecasts are commonly evaluated with aggregate accuracy metrics such as RMSE and MAE, but these metrics can hide conditional failures that matter for risk management. This paper proposes a model-agnostic audit framework for evaluating whether volatility forecasts remain reliable across latent market regimes. We learn time-series representations of market-state windows, cluster them into regimes using only training information, assign regimes out of sample, and compare aggregate forecast behavior with regime-conditional bias, tail-underprediction, and underprediction-sensitive economic losses. Applied to daily volatility forecasting across cryptocurrency and ETF assets, the audit shows that models with competitive aggregate accuracy can still exhibit substantial regime-specific bias and severe tail underprediction. The results suggest that volatility forecasting should be evaluated not only by average error, but also by where and how forecasts become unreliable. Our framework shifts forecast evaluation from asking which model is most accurate on average to identifying the market regimes in which apparently accurate forecasts fail conditionally. Reproducibility: https://github.com/arthurchagas1/Latent-Regime-Bias-Auditing-for-Volatility-Forecasting

BayesAME: Bayesian Active Model Evaluation

Evaluating large generative models across benchmarks is time-consuming and computationally expensive. This drives the need for methods that can estimate full benchmark performance by evaluating models on only a subset of items, known as a coreset. Current literature mostly requires the practitioner to input a coreset size. However, when reliable performance estimation takes priority over efficiency, an evaluation method should also be capable of automatically determining a coreset size that reflects this priority. We introduce BayesAME, a sequential Bayesian framework specifically targeting automatic determination of the coreset size. BayesAME models performance as a random variable by defining a latent ability for each group of items sharing the same historical model performances, with a joint prior distribution encoding the belief that the target model behaves similarly to these historical models. The posterior distribution over these abilities is used to derive performance estimators, quantify performance uncertainty, and select items to add to the coreset via an information-gain criterion. The coreset is iteratively augmented until the performance estimate fluctuation and the performance uncertainty fall below their respective user-defined thresholds. We propose a multi-target extension that captures performance correlations across multiple target models to further reduce the coreset size. Through extensive experiments across diverse benchmarks, we demonstrate that BayesAME consistently outperforms sequential adaptations of existing methods. Crucially, our comprehensive analysis addresses recent skepticism in the literature, establishing that non-random coreset selection is advantageous over random selection. Finally, we highlight that leveraging continuous response log-likelihoods over traditional binary scores significantly enhances estimation accuracy.

Can Deep Generative Models Reproduce Non-Stationary Gaussian Random Fields?

Deep generative models (DGMs) are widely used for complex high-dimensional data and increasingly applied to spatial and spatio-temporal modeling. Their generated samples implicitly represent the learned data distribution and associated uncertainty. However, for real-world data, assessing whether DGMs have learned the underlying process is difficult because the ground truth is unknown and evaluation often relies on observations alone. We evaluate representative DGMs, flow matching (FM), DDPM, score-SDE, and VAE, on a known non-stationary Gaussian random field. This paper provides comprehensive metrics to assess recovery of the ground-truth mean and covariance structures, with oracle samples and a stationary control as references. All four models recover the mean surface, while their covariance recovery differs across model families: DDPM and score-SDE recover the covariance structure reasonably well, FM exhibits mildly attenuated non-stationarity and slight variance under-dispersion, and VAE has difficulty recovering the covariance structure. An experiment on ERA5 temperature anomalies further demonstrates how the framework can support the validation and development of DGMs for complex real-world spatio-temporal data.

Stop Guessing When to Stop Testing: Efficient Model Evaluation with Just Enough Data

The inherent rigidity of fixed-size benchmarks makes them an inefficient tool for model evaluation. Diverse evaluation objectives, including model ranking, model selection and testing throughout development, demand varying levels of statistical power. The mismatch between fixed sample sizes and these diverse needs results in either excessive computational cost or compromised reliability - a critical concern for model evaluation. To overcome these limitations, we call for adoption of sequential testing in our field. We provide an adaptive evaluation framework, that provides a principled way to navigate the trade-off between efficiency and reliability in model evaluation. Our framework combines the established statistical paradigm of sequential testing with stopping criteria tailored to common evaluation needs such as diminishing returns detection, and minimum detectable effect size. We demonstrate its ability to adaptively manage the efficiency-reliability trade-off on the Open VLM Leaderboard, including, for example, a 80% reduction in computational cost compared to fixed-size evaluation (with a 2.5-point CI width allowance) while maintaining statistical significance.

CollabEval: Statistically Efficient Collaborative Model Evaluation via Matrix Completion

Evaluating generative AI models is a routine, but resource-intensive, process that is conducted over and over again during the course of model development. In this work, we propose Collaborative Evaluation (CollabEval), a simple, effective, and principled method for exploiting dependencies between historical runs of different models on the same tasks to improve statistical efficiency. Specifically, our approach treats model evaluation as a matrix completion problem over an $M \times N$ matrix of evaluation scores, where $M$ is the total number of models and $N$ is the total number of evaluation prompts. We assume that a subset of these $M$ models are targeted for evaluation. For these target models only a small fraction, $p$, of prompts has been annotated with evaluation scores. Leveraging recent results in prediction-powered inference, we build a low-rank approximation of the score matrix, and use the reconstructed values as control variates in a manner that guarantees unbiased estimates of the true evaluation metric mean, in addition to statistically valid confidence intervals. Empirically, across a wide range of datasets, models, and sparsity levels $p$, we find that CollabEval substantially reduces the mean confidence interval size, and the mean squared error of the point estimate, compared to baseline methods at the same annotation budget.

HERO: Improving the Reliability and Sensitivity of Generative Model Evaluation Using Historical Data

Reliable generative AI models critically rely on expert human annotations to evaluate output quality, yet these "gold" labels are expensive to collect and limited in quantity. Organizations thus often turn to collecting vast but noisy "silver" labels from crowdsourced workers or vendor annotators as proxies for gold labels. Because gold remains the evaluation target, naively aggregating noisy silver labels may introduce bias, and estimators built on sparsely observed gold labels may have high variance to resolve the model performance gaps that guide practical decisions. Model evaluation has become an ongoing operational practice rather than a one-time exercise, with evaluation rounds repeating across model versions, releases, and content domains. A natural question is whether the previous historical evaluation data can be used to improve each new round of evaluation. We introduce HERO (History Enhanced RObust model evaluation), a novel framework that uses historical data to suppress bias (improve reliability) and reduce variance (improve sensitivity) in model performance evaluation. HERO calibrates silver labelers' performance learned from historical gold annotations, and stabilizes the resulting estimator by anchoring it to covariate information measured with high precision in the historical data. HERO can be broadly applied across multiple common evaluation tasks, and remains valid when only a subset of historical labelers appears in the current round. We establish conditions under which the bias and variance reductions hold, showcase HERO's performance in simulation studies, and demonstrate its effectiveness on real-world model evaluation benchmarking datasets.

Autoencoder Architectures for Athlete Performance Scoring from Wearable Telemetry

Wearable devices produce large, high dimensional training logs for everyday runners, and interpretation rather than data collection is now the limiting step. This paper evaluates five dimensionality reduction models, three autoencoder variants, PCA, and a Variational Autoencoder, on their ability to compress nine sensor runner profiles into a single scalar performance indicator, the latent score. Because the setting is fully unsupervised, model quality is assessed along two complementary axes: reconstruction error (Mean Squared Error) and latent score interpretability, measured via Spearman and Kendall rank correlations, Mutual Information, and Permutation Importance. These are combined into a composite selection criterion that prevents selecting models on reconstruction accuracy alone. Feature rankings from the four metrics are aggregated via a modified Borda count, and their stability is confirmed by bootstrap validation. A two feature linear baseline is included to anchor the comparison. Deep autoencoder achieved the lowest reconstruction error and the highest composite score. Once the PCA hidden layers were widened, the deeper variants became closely competitive with Deep AE on the composite criterion, indicating that the limiting factor was hidden layer capacity rather than the one dimensional bottleneck. Running pace, aerobic decoupling, and average heart rate emerged as the dominant latent score drivers across all models and resampling runs, consistent with established physiology.

From Forecasting Leaderboards to Deployment Decisions: A Fail-Closed Certification Protocol

Forecasting leaderboards rank models by predictive quality, but their winners are often read as deployment-ready top-1 advice. That reading can fail when forecasts are passed through a fixed decision interface, such as an alert threshold, a top-k budget, or a switching-cost policy. We study when a forecast-side winner can be certified as deployment-actionable for a specified interface and deployed utility. We introduce a fail-closed certification protocol whose gates are sufficient evidential conditions for a strong claim: a friction-caused, non-tie, statistically supported, and recurrent deployment-side reversal. Traffic-Hourly provides a certified anchor: winners agree at zero friction, but positive switching friction makes the forecast winner deployed-suboptimal. A locked native audit tests overclaiming: across 22 verified candidates and 362 full-grid cells, 155 apparent forecast/deployment winner inversions are blocked before certification. The contribution is not a new forecaster, metric, or universal utility, but a conservative protocol for deciding when forecasting leaderboard winners should be read as deployment-actionable top-1 advice.

The Illusion of Improvement: Reject Inference Strategies in Credit Scoring

Reject inference methods are widely used to mitigate survival bias in credit scoring, yet their effectiveness remains poorly understood. We systematically evaluate several such methods and uncover a structural failure mode: in a natural retraining cycle, models whose accuracy improves while recall collapses create an illusion of improvement that leads practitioners to believe the system is getting better when, in fact, its rejection quality -- the ability to correctly screen out defaulters -- is deteriorating. We then propose a controlled exploration strategy that breaks the feedback loop without statistical assumptions: the lender deliberately approves a fraction of rejected applicants and observes their true outcomes. We show that accuracy and rejection quality give opposite recommendations on whether to explore: accuracy favors no exploration, while rejection quality improves with it, confirming that standard evaluation metrics are misleading under selection bias. Even minimal exploration rates (2--5\%) prove sufficient in our experiments to diagnose the severity of the feedback loop at near-zero cost. Our findings are consistent across two machine learning methods and three real-world datasets, and suggest that standard evaluation protocols are inadequate for assessing models trained under survival bias.

HawkesNest: A Multi-Axis Synthetic Benchmark for Spatiotemporal Pattern Complexity

Evaluation of spatiotemporal point process (STPP) models relies heavily on opaque real-world datasets, where latent generative structure is unknown and model failures are difficult to attribute. We introduce HawkesNest, a generator-aligned benchmark for controlled spatiotemporal pattern complexity built on a multivariate Hawkes backbone. HawkesNest defines four complexity axes: space--time entanglement, background heterogeneity, cross-type interaction, and domain topology. Each axis is associated with a deterministic index computed from the latent data-generating mechanism. By varying these axes while holding global rate, stability, and simulation budget fixed, HawkesNest enables diagnostic stress tests of STPP models under known structural difficulty. We verify that the indices are monotone and nearly orthogonal under controlled sweeps. We illustrate its use by showing that Hawkes-family baselines degrade under joint heterogeneity--entanglement complexity, even though they are structurally aligned with the Hawkes data-generating backbone. We further show that HawkesNest exposes neural-model sensitivity: AutoSTPP remains vulnerable under isolated increases in space--time entanglement. Code. Available at https://github.com/YahyaAalaila/HawkesNest

Crossing the Validation Crisis: Cross-Validation Reduces Benchmarking Variance Surprisingly Well

Modern machine learning progresses through empirical work, benchmarking new methods to evaluate relative performance. However, the statistical variability inherent to evaluation - exacerbated by the stochastic nature of many algorithms - often makes performance estimation unreliable due to the limited test samples available, leading to a validation crisis in which genuine advances are difficult to discern. In this work, we show that cross-validation improves markedly confidence when evaluating and comparing learning algorithm performances. We introduce the concept of sample gain, which quantifies the virtual data augmentation achieved by using multiple cross-validation splits to reduce benchmarking variance. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets (histopathologic scans and NLP fine-tuning) demonstrate that multiple splits can substantially improve the reliability and stability of performance estimates, with diminishing returns often setting in later than expected. We also introduce a procedure to dynamically early-stop cross-validation by estimating from the first few folds if subsequent folds will bring large sample gains. Our findings highlight the value of pushing cross-validation on available samples to achieve robust and reliable benchmarking.

Rank Intervals for Leaderboards: A Hierarchical Framework for Model Evaluation

Pretrained models are often evaluated on multi-task leaderboards to measure their applicability in diverse contexts. However, current methods for aggregating performance across tasks into leaderboard-level rankings do not address the uncertainty and variability at the task level. While recent works have proposed interval-based model rankings, the principled aggregation of uncertainty from individual tasks to leaderboard-level rankings remains unaddressed, and variation in models' performance across tasks is frequently obscured. In this work, we introduce a hierarchical framework that constructs model rank intervals with statistical guarantees at both levels: task-level rank confidence intervals from pairwise comparisons, and leaderboard-level rank prediction intervals using a conformal approach. This enables reliable quantification of model rank for each observed task and for new potential tasks. Experiments on simulated data and the TabArena and PromptEval (MMLU) benchmarks show that our method yields statistically valid and informative intervals, enabling reliable, uncertainty-aware model ranking on leaderboards.

FinStressTS: A Parametric Synthetic Benchmark for Time-Series Forecasting in Finance

Financial forecasting is difficult due to low signal-to-noise ratios, latent factors, heavy tails, regime shifts, and jumps. Real-world benchmarks offer limited failure attribution: researchers can observe underperformance, but often cannot isolate why because mechanisms are unobservable and entangled. Real financial data reveal only one realized path, making it difficult to assess tail-risk calibration or data efficiency. We introduce FinStressTS, a mechanism-aware synthetic benchmark that links model behavior to controlled structural causes. FinStressTS comprises 30 diagnostic environments around six mechanism families: volatility clustering, multi-scale persistence, heavy-tailed shocks, regime switching, self-exciting jumps, and zero-inflated processes. We evaluate two tasks: point forecasting, using NMAE across five settings, and probabilistic forecasting, using CRPS under known data-generating mechanisms. We benchmark 15 models, from classical methods (HAR, VAR) to Transformer forecasters (PatchTST, iTransformer) and deep probabilistic architectures (DeepAR, TSFlow), and use learning curves to measure sample efficiency. Our evaluation reveals three insights. First, performance is mechanism-dependent: autoregressive and linear models are highly competitive, and often outperform Transformer-based models, in several volatility-, tail-, and jump-driven environments. Second, distributional alignment matters: parametric probabilistic models such as DeepAR calibrate well in stationary settings, while flexible models can help when distributions become multimodal or sparse. Third, neural models often require more data to match simple baselines, with larger gains mainly when learning latent regimes or complex distributions. FinStressTS provides an open framework for diagnosing failure modes and advancing risk-aware forecasting.