Do Time-Series Foundation Models Forecast Index-Futures Returns? A Preregistered Evaluation of Models, Metrics, and Input Representations
원문 초록
We ask whether the apparent forecasting skill of frozen time-series foundation models (TSFMs) on intraday index-futures returns is incremental skill. In a pre-registered evaluation on E-mini Nasdaq-100 (NQ) and E-mini S&P 500 (ES) futures, a common panel of five zero-shot models (Chronos-Bolt, Chronos-2, TimesFM 2.5, Moirai 2.0 and TiRex), plus separate experiments with Kronos, is compared with a no-change forecast at 5-120 minutes, using native prices, log returns, volatility-standardised returns and a volume clock as inputs. On a blind set opened once, 0 of 160 model-representation-horizon-market cells beat no-change, and a Hansen SPA test gives p = 1.000 on both markets; a later retrospective hold-out, scored as a descriptive check, gives 0 of 120. Input representations change forecast magnitude but not accuracy, and a transformation-aware ridge regression does as well. Several standard measures nevertheless suggest skill. Price-level correlation exceeds 0.9996, but no-change scores higher. Within-day RankIC across forecast origins rewards a trivial revert-to-mean rule (+0.35 at 30 minutes); we derive the expected within-day covariance under a random walk in closed form, and a sign-randomised null reproduces about 95% of the observed value. One model beats HAR for 5-minute volatility, but not the EWMA its input already contains. On strongly planted synthetic signals the models recover part of the signal at 5 minutes, and recovery deteriorates at 30 minutes. Benchmark-level success of TSFMs should therefore not be assumed to carry over to low-signal domains such as intraday returns.
제출 이력
확인된 버전만 표시합니다. 전체 제출 이력은 arXiv 원문에서 확인하세요.
- arXiv:2611.12141v1제출 시각 미확인
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
공통 태그로 연결된 공개 논문이 아직 없습니다.
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.