REVIEW 1 cited by
Foundation vs. Specialized Models: Evaluating Catastrophic Forgetting in Continual Time Series Forecasting
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Foundation vs. Specialized Models: Evaluating Catastrophic Forgetting in Continual Time Series Forecasting
read the original abstract
While Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) excel in zero-shot tasks, their behavior under continual fine tuning is poorly understood. We present the first systematic study of catastrophic forgetting in TSFMs (TimesFM-2.0, Chronos-2) versus a specialized SamFormer model across synthetic and real-world energy forecasting benchmarks. Our results show that while fine-tuning improves new task accuracy, it consistently triggers forgetting, though larger models exhibit greater inherent robustness. Notably, employing forgetting mitigation techniques such as DER, levels the playing field: it provides disproportionate gains to smaller models, allowing them to match TSFM performance by the end of the continual learning sequence. These findings suggest that in realistic, non-stationary scenarios, the high computational cost of large foundation models may not be justified over smaller models equipped with effective mitigation strategies.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
FETS Benchmark: Foundation Models Outperform Dataset-specific Machine Learning in Energy Time Series Forecasting
Foundation models outperform dataset-specific machine learning in energy time series forecasting across 54 datasets in 9 categories.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.