Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 22, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) promise a paradigm shift toward zero-shot forecasting by eliminating task-specific training. However, existing works often overlook trade-offs between predictive accuracy and probabilistic calibration. This paper presents a benchmark study of six TSFMs evaluated on energy, traffic, and financial datasets. We contrast their performance against statistical baselines and a supervised DL model. The study reveals that while TSFMs outperform statistical methods and supervised models, they are subject to a fundamental trade-off between point accuracy and probabilistic reliability. Specifically, xLSTM architectures provide robust probabilistic calibration across horizons. In contrast, patch-based transformers offer competitive accuracy but face calibration issues at long horizons, while transformer-based models exhibit context saturation points for optimal zero-shot reasoning. These findings offer evidence-based guidance for balancing generalization and uncertainty quantification in real-world deployments.