aiqbench analysis
This research identifies a critical limitation in time-series foundation models (TSFMs) for model predictive control, demonstrating that accurate forecasting alone does not ensure correct prediction of system responses to specific interventions. The study reveals that recovering input-response relationships requires sufficient independent control excitation within the inference context, meaning standard fine-tuning or smoothing techniques are insufficient on their own. These findings provide essential guidance for deploying foundation models in closed-loop control systems where understanding causal dynamics is paramount.
Time-series Foundation Models for Predictive Control: The Role of Excitation
arXiv:2610.06447v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deploying model predictive control (MPC) requires constructing or identifying a predictive model for each target system. Time-series foundation models (TSFMs) offer an attractive option thanks to strong zero-shot forecasting capabilities across systems. However, low forecast error does not guarantee that a TSFM captures the system's response to the alternative actions considered by the controller. We study this gap using residential heat-pump control as a test bed, measuring the agreement between predicted and ground-truth effects of control interventions. Importantly, we find that TSFMs can recover the system's input-response relationship when the context contains sufficient independent control excitation. Common fine-tuning pipelines and feature smoothing reduce, but do not eliminate, the need for in-context excitation. Our results indicate that current TSFMs used for predictive control require sufficiently informative control variation in the inference context. Initial closed-loop results show promise for shorter context windows.
Abstract:Deploying model predictive control (MPC) requires constructing or identifying a predictive model for each target system. Time-series foundation models (TSFMs) offer an attractive option thanks to strong zero-shot forecasting capabilities across systems. However, low forecast error does not guarantee that a TSFM captures the system's response to the alternative actions considered by the controller. We study this gap using residential heat-pump control as a test bed, measuring the agreement between predicted and ground-truth effects of control interventions. Importantly, we find that TSFMs can recover the system's input-response relationship when the context contains sufficient independent control excitation. Common fine-tuning pipelines and feature smoothing reduce, but do not eliminate, the need for in-context excitation. Our results indicate that current TSFMs used for predictive control require sufficiently informative control variation in the inference context. Initial closed-loop results show promise for shorter context windows.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Systems and Control (eess.SY)
arXiv:2610.06447 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.06447v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.06447 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 · 238 words
Related coverage

Runway’s WorldPrompt and the Engineering of Real-Time Worlds
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026

Microsoft’s AI chief says superintelligence is near, but won’t take your job
The Verge · Jun 8, 2026

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · Sep 16, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026