🤖 AI Summary
This study addresses the dynamic response attenuation exhibited by time series foundation models under counterfactual inputs, which impedes accurate prediction of controlled system variations. We propose an evaluation framework based on paired counterfactual inputs that reveals amplitude attenuation deficiencies stemming from pretraining priors. To mitigate this issue, we perform short-horizon fine-tuning on models such as Chronos-2 using synthetically generated forced system data. Experimental results demonstrate that fine-tuning restores sensitivity to 0.83–0.96 and, for specific nonlinear systems, surpasses classical structure-agnostic identification methods. This work provides an effective pathway for enhancing the physical consistency of time series foundation models.
📝 Abstract
Covariate-aware time-series foundation models (TSFMs) promise training-free what-if answers for instrumented plants: the change in output that a different future input would cause. We test this on forced engineering systems with exact counterfactuals, comparing Chronos-2, TimesFM-2.5 and TabPFN-TS with classical system identification fitted to the same context. Through their default covariate interfaces, TimesFM-2.5 and TabPFN-TS are memoryless: the predicted effect of an input change is a same-time function of that change ($R^2 = 1.000$ for TimesFM-2.5). Chronos-2 identifies dynamics in context but attenuates them. Its predicted effect is 0.33-0.80 of the true effect, its recovered impulse response has the wrong shape, and its error on a one-degree-of-freedom oscillator levels off at 0.57 with 8192 context samples, where ARX fitted to 256 samples reaches 0.02. Context dither at inference lowers the what-if error on all six synthetic classes without training. A 26-minute fine-tune on synthetic forced systems restores the response magnitude (sensitivity 0.83-0.96) and outperforms structure-agnostic identification on Wiener-Hammerstein and a held-out friction class. A specialised in-context identifier trained on the same data comes close, so the forced-system data carry most of the gain. On three of four measured plants classical identification remains clearly better, and the fine-tuned model loses part of its univariate forecasting skill. Paired counterfactual inputs, together with shuffled future inputs on measured records, test two properties: whether the covariate interface can represent dynamics and whether the pretraining prior covers the plant's time scale. Only the counterfactual pairs expose the attenuation.