Skip to content
← Back to explorer

SciTS: Scientific Time Series Understanding and Generation with LLMs

Wen Wu, Ziyang Zhang, Liwei Liu, Xuenan Xu, Jimin Zhuang, Ke Fan, Qitan Lv, Junlin Liu, Chen Zhang, Zheqi Yuan, Siyuan Hou, Tianyi Lin, Kai Chen, Bowen Zhou, Chao Zhang · Sep 26, 2025 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Feb 25, 2026, 8:50 AM

Stale

Extraction refreshed

Apr 13, 2026, 6:39 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.35

Abstract

The scientific reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) has recently attracted significant attention. Time series, as a fundamental modality in scientific data, presents unique challenges that are often overlooked in current multimodal LLMs, which either encode numerical sequences as text or convert them into images. Such approaches may be insufficient for comprehensive scientific time series understanding and generation. Existing unified time series models typically specialise in either forecasting or analysis, and their effectiveness on non-periodic, heterogeneous scientific signals remains unclear. To address these gaps, we introduce SciTS, a benchmark spanning 12 scientific domains and 43 tasks, with over 50k+ instances, both univariate and multivariate signals ranging from $10^0$ to $10^7$ in length and up to 10~MHz in frequency. We benchmark 17 models, including text-only LLMs, multimodal LLMs, and unified time series models, and find that general-purpose LLMs exhibit stronger generalisability than specialised time series models, while representing time series as text or images limits their performance due to excessively long sequences and loss of numerical precision, respectively. We then introduce TimeOmni, a framework that equips LLMs with the ability to understand and generate time series while remaining compatible with general-purpose LLM training. This work fills a gap in both dedicated benchmarks and modelling frameworks for scientific time series, paving the way for LLMs to understand and generate complex temporal scientific data.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.35 (below strong-reference threshold).
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: The scientific reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) has recently attracted significant attention.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: The scientific reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) has recently attracted significant attention.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: The scientific reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) has recently attracted significant attention.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: The scientific reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) has recently attracted significant attention.

Reported Metrics

partial

Precision

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: We benchmark 17 models, including text-only LLMs, multimodal LLMs, and unified time series models, and find that general-purpose LLMs exhibit stronger generalisability than specialised time series models, while representing time series as text or images limits their performance due to excessively long sequences and loss of numerical precision, respectively.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: The scientific reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) has recently attracted significant attention.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.35
  • Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

precision

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

To address these gaps, we introduce SciTS, a benchmark spanning 12 scientific domains and 43 tasks, with over 50k+ instances, both univariate and multivariate signals ranging from 10^0 to 10^7 in length and up to 10~MHz in frequency. HFEPX signals include Automatic Metrics with confidence 0.35. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Apr 13, 2026, 6:39 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • To address these gaps, we introduce SciTS, a benchmark spanning 12 scientific domains and 43 tasks, with over 50k+ instances, both univariate and multivariate signals ranging from…
  • We benchmark 17 models, including text-only LLMs, multimodal LLMs, and unified time series models, and find that general-purpose LLMs exhibit stronger generalisability than…

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (precision).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To address these gaps, we introduce SciTS, a benchmark spanning 12 scientific domains and 43 tasks, with over 50k+ instances, both univariate and multivariate signals ranging from 10^0 to 10^7 in length and up to 10~MHz in frequency.
  • We benchmark 17 models, including text-only LLMs, multimodal LLMs, and unified time series models, and find that general-purpose LLMs exhibit stronger generalisability than specialised time series models, while representing time series as…
  • This work fills a gap in both dedicated benchmarks and modelling frameworks for scientific time series, paving the way for LLMs to understand and generate complex temporal scientific data.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • To address these gaps, we introduce SciTS, a benchmark spanning 12 scientific domains and 43 tasks, with over 50k+ instances, both univariate and multivariate signals ranging from 10^0 to 10^7 in length and up to 10~MHz in frequency.
  • We benchmark 17 models, including text-only LLMs, multimodal LLMs, and unified time series models, and find that general-purpose LLMs exhibit stronger generalisability than specialised time series models, while representing time series as…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: precision

Category-Adjacent Papers (Broader Context)

These papers are nearby in arXiv category and useful for broader context, but not necessarily protocol-matched to this paper.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote