aiqbench analysis
ChronoScribe addresses the inherent trade-off in instruction-driven forecasting by decoupling natural language interpretation from numerical prediction. This architecture leverages a LoRA-adapted LLM for task configuration while delegating precise value generation to a frozen time series foundation model, resulting in significantly lower error rates across standard metrics compared to direct-LLM baselines. The approach validates that specialized division of labor between semantic understanding and deterministic forecasting yields superior accuracy without requiring the LLM to hallucinate numerical outputs.
ChronoScribe: Semantic-Numerical Specialization for Instruction-Driven Time Series Forecasting
arXiv:2610.16345v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in instruction-driven time series forecasting highlight a fundamental tension: systems must simultaneously master natural-language instruction following and precise numerical prediction. Current approaches often force a compromise. Large language models (LLMs) can interpret unstructured requests but may be inaccurate when asked to produce forecast values directly, whereas time series foundation models (TSFMs) provide numerical forecasts but typically require structured inputs specifying the target series, context window, and horizon. We present ChronoScribe, which applies semantic-numerical specialization to this workflow. A LoRA-adapted LLM proposes an execution path and context length; deterministic rules resolve the executable configuration. On the specialist path, a frozen TSFM produces quantile trajectories for the task-specified horizon. Deterministic trajectory summaries condition the response, while the LLM neither generates nor revises predicted values. We evaluate a Qwen3.5-9B--Chronos-2 implementation across 23 evaluation dimensions and 30 public datasets against eleven proprietary direct LLMs and three open TSFMs. ChronoScribe has the lowest error on sMAPE, MASE, WAPE, RMSE, and MAE among all evaluated systems, including fixed-context controls. Across these metrics, even the lowest direct-LLM error remains 2.0--2.7 times the corresponding ChronoScribe error. At the system level, ChronoScribe achieves a Task-Level Score (TLS) of 65.5, 10.6 points above the strongest direct-LLM baseline. The results support ChronoScribe's division of labor, in which the LLM handles interpretation, configuration, and communication while the TSFM handles numerical forecasting.
Abstract:Recent advances in instruction-driven time series forecasting highlight a fundamental tension: systems must simultaneously master natural-language instruction following and precise numerical prediction. Current approaches often force a compromise. Large language models (LLMs) can interpret unstructured requests but may be inaccurate when asked to produce forecast values directly, whereas time series foundation models (TSFMs) provide numerical forecasts but typically require structured inputs specifying the target series, context window, and horizon. We present ChronoScribe, which applies semantic-numerical specialization to this workflow. A LoRA-adapted LLM proposes an execution path and context length; deterministic rules resolve the executable configuration. On the specialist path, a frozen TSFM produces quantile trajectories for the task-specified horizon. Deterministic trajectory summaries condition the response, while the LLM neither generates nor revises predicted values. We evaluate a Qwen3.5-9B--Chronos-2 implementation across 23 evaluation dimensions and 30 public datasets against eleven proprietary direct LLMs and three open TSFMs. ChronoScribe has the lowest error on sMAPE, MASE, WAPE, RMSE, and MAE among all evaluated systems, including fixed-context controls. Across these metrics, even the lowest direct-LLM error remains 2.0--2.7 times the corresponding ChronoScribe error. At the system level, ChronoScribe achieves a Task-Level Score (TLS) of 65.5, 10.6 points above the strongest direct-LLM baseline. The results support ChronoScribe's division of labor, in which the LLM handles interpretation, configuration, and communication while the TSFM handles numerical forecasting.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.16345 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.16345v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.16345 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words
Related coverage
Performance Profiling on AMD GPUs – Part 5: Profiling-Driven Kernel Optimization with an AI Code-Assist Tool
AMD · Jul 16, 2026

GEAK V3: Agent-Driven, Repository-Level GPU Kernel Optimization across HIP, Triton, and FlyDSL on AMD GPUs
AMD · Jul 20, 2026
Performance Profiling on AMD GPUs - Part 6: Advanced Thread Trace (ATT) - The Microscope for Your Application
AMD · Sep 22, 2026

Article: Artificial Intelligence-Driven Phishing: How Phishing Technique Is Evolving and Implemented
InfoQ · Jun 8, 2026