TinyCast: Probabilistic Zero-Shot Forecasting with Computed Periodicity
arXiv:2608.157672026-08-15
A time-series forecasting AI shrunk to 146,505 parameters keeps its accuracy and runs entirely on a tiny embedded chip
TinyCast is a zero-shot forecaster, meaning it predicts future values on unseen time series without any per-signal training, using just 146,505 parameters. Instead of learning periodic patterns with a neural network, it computes them directly with a parameter-free spectral detector, then folds the data on that rhythm before a convolutional encoder and a quantile decoder handle the rest. The result is smaller than every zero-shot model on the GIFT-Eval leaderboard whose size is known, sets a new size-versus-accuracy frontier for probabilistic forecasts, and runs end to end on an embedded board using INT8 integer arithmetic with no per-signal fitting.
What they did
Instead of learning seasonality (repeating cycles) through training, TinyCast computes it with a zero-parameter spectral detector and folds the input data according to that detected rhythm's phase
A dilated convolutional encoder and a block-by-block autoregressive quantile decoder handle the remaining pattern learning, with no attention mechanism used anywhere
Among zero-shot models on the GIFT-Eval benchmark whose parameter counts are known, TinyCast is the smallest, and it sets a new best frontier for probabilistic accuracy (nWQL) relative to model size
Among zero-shot models that declare no test-data leakage, it is the only one under 1.4 million parameters that outputs a full predictive distribution rather than a single point value; every model that scores better needs at least 1.4 million parameters
Because it uses only convolutions and matrix multiplications, the model exports to static INT8 integer format and runs a complete forecast on an STM32H753 embedded board with no neural accelerator and no per-signal tuning
Figure 1: TinyCast architecture. (a) A single encoder block. (b) The pipeline for one 48-step block: the normalized context and the period-conditioned positional encoding pass through the encoder and decoder to nine quantiles at all block positions in parallel; the dashed arrow is the median feedback that chains blocks. (c) The decoder, whose three readouts compose the per-horizon query qh.
Table 1: Zero-shot GIFT-Eval; lower is better, best per column in bold among the learned models. All three metrics are ratios to seasonal naive, which scores 1.000 on each. Parenthesized values are point errors for models not emitting predictive distributions.
Model
Params ↓
nGMASE↓
nWQL↓
nMSIS↓
TinyCast (ours)
146 K
0.774
0.545
0.554
Reverso-Nano (Fu et al. 2026)
200 K
0.760
(0.661)
(2.035)
Reverso-Small (Fu et al. 2026)
550 K
0.726
(0.626)
(1.945)
TTM-R3 (Ekambaram et al. 2024)
1.4 M
0.724
0.520
0.501
Reverso (Fu et al. 2026)
2.6 M
0.711
(0.610)
(1.905)
Toto-2.0-4m (Khwaja et al. 2026)
4.1 M
0.757
0.524
0.455
YingLong-6m (Wang et al. 2025a)
7.3 M
0.880
0.609
0.534
FlowState-9.1M (Graf et al. 2026)
9.1 M
0.726
0.502
0.563
Kairos-10m (Feng et al. 2025)
9.9 M
0.753
0.554
0.776
AutoARIMA (Hyndman & Khandakar 2008)
0
1.074
0.912
0.948
AutoTheta (Assimakopoulos & Nikolopoulos 2000)
0
1.090
1.244
1.199
AutoETS (Hyndman et al. 2002)
0
1.212
7.489
8.635
FLAIR (Honda 2026)
0
0.838
0.587
0.538
Figure 2: GIFT-Eval point accuracy (left) and nWQL (right) versus parameter count; lower is better. TinyCast∗ is the same checkpoint at the firmware profile (Section 4.3). Dashed staircase: the Pareto frontier over the census at the host profile, which the static-W8A8 point does not enter.
Figure 3: Phase binning of the context with a dominant detected period of p1=24. (a) Context values against position relative to the forecast start, t−L; the stripe below assigns every position to one of nb=16 phase bins. (b) Cycle template: the mean of the context values sharing a bin. The arrow indicates the phase template selection for the marked future offset h∗.
Table 3: Training configuration of the deployed TinyCast.
Optimization
Optimizer
AdamW (Loshchilov & Hutter 2019)
Weight decay
0.01
Gradient clipping
1.0
Precision
bf16-mixed
Random seed
42
Total samples
150 M
Effective batch size
4096
Accelerators
eight RTX 3090, DDP
Wall clock
7.8 h, about 62 accelerator-hours
Final weights
average of the last eight checkpoints
Learning-rate schedule
Shape
warmup-stable-decay
Peak learning rate
3×10−3
Minimum learning rate
1×10−5
Warmup fraction
5% (linear to peak)
Stable fraction
60% (held at peak)
Decay fraction
35% (to the minimum)
Sequence layout
Context length L
2048
Horizon unit p
48
Objective and data
Loss
nine-quantile pinball + gated committing term (weight 0.3)
Scheduled sampling
four blocks; feedback probability ramps to 0.5
Corpus
GIFT-Eval-Pretrain + Chronos KernelSynth + four synthetic shards, band-balanced
Augmentations
temporal flip, sign flip, downsample, mixup; each p=0.5
Figure 4: Empirical cumulative distribution over all 97 configurations of the relative change from the matched unquantized reference to the quantized host profile, both carrying the two host-side strategies, in nGMASE (left) and nWQL (right), for all configurations (black) and by forecast term (light to dark: 55 short, 21 medium, 21 long). Positive is a degradation and the dashed line is zero change; the panels share one x range. Dots mark the median and the P90; the filled marker where a curve reaches one is the worst configuration, named with its change.
Table 4: The eight scored configurations: one checkpoint, the same 97 GIFT-Eval configurations, all scored on the host. Lower is better. “Exact” W8A8 calls a host build of the same C integer core sources the firmware executes rather than a fake-quantization emulation, and the board runs the fidelity chain of Appendix E, not the benchmark.
Profile
Arithmetic
Symmetrization
Alignment
nGMASE
nWQL
nMSIS
Host
bf16
yes
yes
0.7738
0.5454
0.5541
No alignment
bf16
yes
no
0.7858
0.5567
0.5786
No symmetrization
bf16
no
yes
0.7816
0.5515
0.5638
Single pass
bf16
no
no
0.7935
0.5629
0.5889
Quantization reference
fp32-strict
yes
yes
0.7736
0.5457
0.5535
Single-pass reference
fp32-strict
no
no
0.7918
0.5622
0.5865
Quantized host
exact W8A8
yes
yes
0.7901
0.5526
0.5632
Firmware configuration
exact W8A8
no
no
0.8328
0.5807
0.6243
Figure 5: The same construction as Figure 4, but at the firmware profile: the relative change from the single-pass reference to exact static W8A8, with neither sign symmetrization nor period alignment on either side. Lower is better and positive is a degradation.
Table 5: Per-dataset supervised models in the pinned snapshot, all 97 configurations, ratios to seasonal naive. Lower is better. These are trained on the series they forecast and are therefore outside the zero-shot census of Table 1.
Model
nGMASE↓
nWQL↓
nMSIS↓
TinyCast (ours)
0.774
0.545
0.554
PatchTST
0.849
0.587
0.574
iTransformer
0.893
0.620
0.613
TFT
0.915
0.605
0.656
N-BEATS
0.938
0.816
2.512
DLinear
1.061
0.846
2.841
TiDE
1.091
0.772
0.906
DeepAR
1.343
0.853
0.933
Crossformer
2.574
1.637
6.892
Figure 6: Zero-shot forecasts at the host profile on ten GIFT-Eval tasks, spanning all seven domains, four sampling frequencies and three forecast terms. Truth (blue), median forecast (orange, dashed), shaded 10–90% predictive interval, seasonal naive (grey, dotted); the vertical dotted line marks the forecast start and grey bands mark missing observations. Titles give configuration, domain, nGMASE and, where the horizon is only partly drawn, “first n of H”; y is in each series’ own units. The panel-selection and x-range rules are stated below.
Table 6: Paired bootstrap intervals for every difference in Table 1 with a per-configuration comparator record. Positive Δ means the comparator scores lower and therefore leads. The three StatsForecast baselines are omitted: all are resolved against us, by margins of 0.30 to 8.08 units. FLAIR is absent for the reason given above, having no per-configuration entry in the snapshot. † marks a difference whose cluster interval spans zero. The Reverso rows on nWQL and nMSIS carry the same caveat as in Table 1: those models emit no predictive distribution, so the quantity differenced is a point error.
95% CI
Model
Params
Δ
configs
base datasets
nGMASE
Reverso-Nano
200 K
+0.0140†
[+0.0030,+0.0245]
[−0.0022,+0.0283]
Reverso-Small
550 K
+0.0475
[+0.0366,+0.0581]
[+0.0322,+0.0613]
TTM-R3
1.4 M
+0.0498
[+0.0348,+0.0656]
[+0.0290,+0.0695]
Reverso
2.6 M
+0.0626
[+0.0479,+0.0782]
[+0.0437,+0.0843]
Toto-2.0-4m
4.1 M
+0.0172†
[−0.0081,+0.0382]
[−0.0102,+0.0448]
YingLong-6m
7.3 M
−0.1064
[−0.1446,−0.0733]
[−0.1702,−0.0530]
FlowState-9.1M
9.1 M
+0.0476
[+0.0327,+0.0627]
[+0.0300,+0.0651]
Kairos-10m
9.9 M
+0.0211
[+0.0008,+0.0383]
[+0.0021,+0.0374]
nWQL
Reverso-Nano
200 K
−0.1156
[−0.1324,−0.1002]
[−0.1408,−0.0922]
Reverso-Small
550 K
−0.0811
[−0.0954,−0.0678]
[−0.1006,−0.0634]
TTM-R3
1.4 M
+0.0259
[+0.0127,+0.0399]
[+0.0085,+0.0459]
Reverso
2.6 M
−0.0649
[−0.0827,−0.0466]
[−0.0886,−0.0382]
Toto-2.0-4m
4.1 M
+0.0213†
[+0.0001,+0.0401]
[−0.0036,+0.0457]
YingLong-6m
7.3 M
−0.0636
[−0.0894,−0.0405]
[−0.1031,−0.0260]
FlowState-9.1M
9.1 M
+0.0435
[+0.0304,+0.0582]
[+0.0268,+0.0629]
Kairos-10m
9.9 M
−0.0087†
[−0.0283,+0.0086]
[−0.0278,+0.0092]
nMSIS
Reverso-Nano
200 K
−1.4807
[−1.6688,−1.3123]
[−1.7867,−1.1911]
Reverso-Small
550 K
−1.3911
[−1.5651,−1.2281]
[−1.6846,−1.1185]
TTM-R3
1.4 M
+0.0528
[+0.0219,+0.0843]
[+0.0076,+0.0935]
Reverso
2.6 M
−1.3506
[−1.5205,−1.1952]
[−1.6226,−1.0875]
Toto-2.0-4m
4.1 M
+0.0989
[+0.0684,+0.1304]
[+0.0668,+0.1309]
YingLong-6m
7.3 M
+0.0200†
[−0.0131,+0.0522]
[−0.0300,+0.0579]
FlowState-9.1M
9.1 M
−0.0091†
[−0.0413,+0.0244]
[−0.0488,+0.0215]
Kairos-10m
9.9 M
−0.2224
[−0.2852,−0.1660]
[−0.2967,−0.1549]
Table 7: Configuration of the three ablation families and of the deployed model. Deltas are valid within a family and absolute scores are not comparable across families. Q is the number of quantile levels; the single-quantile families are scored on nMAD, and the component family runs at about a fifth of the deployed sample budget. Every family reads GIFT-Eval-Pretrain and Chronos KernelSynth; the component family adds four locally generated length-4096 KernelSynth shards, which its synthetic-family arm replaces with the four Reverso-family shards the deployed model trains on.
Family
Control
Parameters
Steps
Q
Encoder
Architecture
dilated-conv base
340,545
7,500
1
untied, non-separable, FFN 1.5
+ phase binning
361,089
+ recency gate
393,921
substituted-recency arm
410,241
Component
architecture family’s best arm
394,441
30,000
9
untied, non-separable, FFN 1.5
+ future-conv
445,513
future-conv stack separable, shared FFN
Optimization
peak LR 3×10−3, 100 M samples
–
–
1
effective batch 4096
Deployed
–
146,505
36,621
9
tied, separable, FFN 1.0
Table 8: Architecture family, dilated-conv base at 340 K, 7,500 steps. Lower is better on nGMASE and nMAD, so a negative Δ is an improvement. Arms are not parameter-matched, and each row gives its count. nMAD is the single-quantile point error defined above. † marks a delta whose 95% paired bootstrap interval over configurations spans zero.
params
nGMASE
Δ
nMAD
Δ
detector off, recency path substituted
410 K
1.1537
+0.1312
0.9774
+0.1160
control (dilated-conv base)
340 K
1.0225
0.8614
causal padding
340 K
1.0161
−0.0064†
0.8562
−0.0052†
+ phase binning
361 K
0.9248
−0.0977
0.7791
−0.0823
+ phase binning + causal
361 K
0.9250
−0.0975
0.7886
−0.0728
+ phase binning + recency gate
393 K
0.9092
−0.1133
0.7694
−0.0920
Table 9: Component family, 394 K nine-quantile line, 30,000 steps. Lower is better on nGMASE and nWQL, so a negative Δ is an improvement. Arms carry the control’s parameter count except future-conv, which adds 51 K. † marks a delta whose 95% paired bootstrap interval over configurations spans zero.
nGMASE
Δ
nWQL
Δ
control (394 K line)
0.8123
0.5699
+ future-conv correction
0.7972
−0.0151
0.5614
−0.0085
+ synthetic-family blend
0.8060
−0.0062†
0.5669
−0.0030†
+ synthetic-family blend (tuned dose)
0.8052
−0.0071†
0.5623
−0.0076†
+ gated committing loss
0.8100
−0.0023†
0.5690
−0.0009†
+ future-conv + synthetic families
0.7860
−0.0263
0.5529
−0.0170
8 training AR chunks (vs 4)
0.8132
+0.0010†
0.5648
−0.0051†
backtest-selected period (vs raw detection)
0.8167
+0.0044†
0.5749
+0.0050†
MASE-weighted loss
0.8146
+0.0023†
0.5719
+0.0020†
Table 10: Optimization family: learning-rate peak and sample budget. Lower is better, so a negative Δ is an improvement. nMAD is a point error, as in Table 8. † marks a delta whose interval spans zero.
nGMASE
Δ
nMAD
Δ
control (peak LR 3×10−3, 100 M samples)
0.8562
0.7252
peak LR 1e-3
0.8957
+0.0395
0.7460
+0.0208
peak LR 2e-3
0.8665
+0.0103
0.7300
+0.0048†
peak LR 4e-3
0.8745
+0.0183
0.7304
+0.0052†
budget 50 M samples
0.8933
+0.0371
0.7479
+0.0227
budget 150 M samples
0.8533
−0.0029†
0.7217
−0.0035†
Table 11: Single-variable overrides on the architecture family’s best arm. All 97 GIFT-Eval configurations; a negative Δ is an improvement.
nGMASE
Δ
control (phase binning + recency gate)
0.9092
phase bins, 16 to 32
0.9047
−0.0045
cross-horizon convolution, width 5
0.9085
−0.0007
encoder kernel width, 3 to 5
0.9100
+0.0008
gated encoder convolution
0.9178
+0.0086
harmonics per period, 1 to 2
0.9178
+0.0086
period cap, 4 to 8
0.9233
+0.0141
recency-weighted phase fold
0.9242
+0.0150
Table 12: Interventions aimed at point accuracy, tested and rejected. nGMASE throughout, lower is better. Groups 1 and 2 are scored against an archived control and group 1’s per-configuration results are released. Group 3’s arms have no archived control, and groups 4 to 6 are reported by direction.
Group
Intervention
Scored on
Result
1 Computed values
seasonal-naive draft as input value
6-config probe
0.8825
+ all significant periods
6-config probe
0.8930
+ linear trend term
6-config probe
0.9178
control (dilated-conv base)
6-config probe
0.8760
trend-seasonal decomposition as channels
97 configs
0.9177
2 Learned rule
learned per-period weight, variant 1
97 configs
0.9114
learned per-period weight, variant 2
97 configs
0.9190
hard reliability rule
97 configs
0.9002
no rule
97 configs
0.9092
3 Per-instance adaptation
4 methods, best is an oracle gate
97 configs
0.818
amortized model
97 configs
0.774
4 Tail-robust objective
worst-α per-sample losses
probe
worse at every α
5 Horizon-weighted loss
linear long-horizon up-weighting
probe
no net change
6 Median up-weighting
q0.5 term up-weighted
probe
no gain at convergence
Table 13: Interval score on GIFT-Eval at the host profile, all 97 configurations, normalized to seasonal naive. Lower is better. Positive Δ means the comparator scores lower and therefore leads. Intervals are paired bootstraps over configurations, and † marks a difference whose cluster interval spans zero. Parenthesized values are point errors for models not emitting predictive distributions, as in Table 1, and their differences carry the same caveat.
Model
Params ↓
nMSIS↓
Δ
95% CI
TinyCast (ours)
146 K
0.554
Reverso-Nano
200 K
(2.035)
−1.4807
[−1.6688,−1.3123]
Reverso-Small
550 K
(1.945)
−1.3911
[−1.5651,−1.2281]
TTM-R3
1.4 M
0.501
+0.0528
[+0.0219,+0.0843]
Reverso
2.6 M
(1.905)
−1.3506
[−1.5205,−1.1952]
Toto-2.0-4m
4.1 M
0.455
+0.0989
[+0.0684,+0.1304]
YingLong-6m
7.3 M
0.534
+0.0200†
[−0.0131,+0.0522]
FlowState-9.1M
9.1 M
0.563
−0.0091†
[−0.0413,+0.0244]
Kairos-10m
9.9 M
0.776
−0.2224
[−0.2852,−0.1660]
FLAIR
0
0.538
–
no per-configuration record
Table 14: Chronos-ZS at the host profile, all 27 tasks, ratios to the published seasonal-naive reference. Lower is better. The statistical methods need no training data and have no position on a parameter axis.
Model
Params
rel. MASE
rel. WQL
TinyCast
146 K
0.880
0.722
AutoARIMA
–
0.869
0.741
AutoTheta
–
0.859
0.793
AutoETS
–
0.943
0.814
TTM-R2
805 K
1.120
1.134
Chronos-Tiny
8.4 M
0.874
0.703
Chronos-Bolt-Tiny
8.7 M
0.849
0.668
Table 15: fev-bench at the host profile, all 100 tasks. Ratios are to the vendored seasonal-naive reference and lower is better. Win rate is TinyCast’s share of tasks won against that model, computed by the benchmark’s own pairwise function, so it rests on no comparator pool. AutoARIMA returns 96 of the 100. ∗CITRAS-FM releases no checkpoint, so its parameter count is the one stated in its paper rather than one we instantiated.
MASE
WQL
Model
Params ↓
ratio
win rate
ratio
win rate
TinyCast
146 K
0.819
–
0.658
–
AutoARIMA
0
0.879
0.688
0.746
0.719
AutoTheta
0
0.890
0.650
0.922
0.810
Toto-2.0-4m
4.1 M
0.720
0.190
0.553
0.140
CITRAS-FM
7.2 M∗
0.707
0.140
0.540
0.080
FlowState
9.1 M
0.702
0.140
0.525
0.110
Table 16: Cold start: accuracy against the number of observed samples, all 97 configurations rescored on a truncated context at the no-alignment profile, since an alignment factor computed from a truncated context would change the effective context length as history shrinks. Relative MAE, lower is better; 1.0 is parity with seasonal naive.
Observed samples
64
128
256
512
1024
2048
Relative MAE
1.013
0.975
0.911
0.845
0.786
0.759
Table 17: Deployment record of the TinyCast static-W8A8 core, with FP32 islands, on an STM32H753 Cortex-M7 at 480 MHz. The RAM rows are not additive: the first 8 KiB of the heap row is already reserved in the linker-section row, and the accounted total removes the overlap.
Latency
Core call (full L=2048 re-encode)
4.08 s
Per-position encoder step (×L per core call)
1860 μs
Decoder (in isolation)
0.20 s
Flash
INT8 matrix and convolution coefficients
138.1 KiB
Complete benchmark image (incl. 8 KiB context)
365.5 KiB
RAM
Encoder causal rings
128.5 KiB
Phase-fold context tensor
128 KiB
Linker RAM sections and reservation
508.6 KiB
Persistent model heap payload
217.0 KiB
Accounted unique RAM (lower bound)
717.6 KiB
Peak occupancy (statics, heap, stack high-water)
730.7 KiB
Why it matters
Maintaining a separate model for every deployed sensor or device is costly in human effort, so a model this small that still generalizes to unseen signals without retraining could remove that burden for edge devices. It also closes a gap where compact models usually only give a single-point guess, by delivering full uncertainty estimates at a size previously reserved for point forecasts.
Terms in this paper
zero-shot forecasting · predicting on new data without any additional training specific to that data
predictive distribution / quantile · an output describing a range of possible values with their probabilities, rather than one single guess
dilated convolution · a convolution that skips input positions to cover a wide range cheaply, capturing long-range patterns
INT8 quantization · representing model numbers as 8-bit integers to cut compute and memory use
phase binning · grouping data points that fall at the same position within a detected cycle and averaging them
Original abstract (English)
We introduce TinyCast, an attention-free zero-shot forecaster that emits a predictive distribution from 146,505 parameters, on the premise that at this size the periodic structure of a context is worth computing rather than learning. A zero-parameter spectral detector supplies the dominant periods, the context is folded on their phase, and a dilated convolutional encoder and a block-autoregressive quantile decoder model the rest. It is smaller than every zero-shot entry on the GIFT-Eval board whose parameter count can be established. On probabilistic accuracy it defines the size-accuracy frontier. Among zero-shot entries declaring no test-data leakage it is the only one below 1.4M parameters that emits a predictive distribution, and every entry scoring better carries at least that budget. On Chronos-ZS and fev-bench every neural model ahead of it carries at least 28 times its parameters. Because the mixing path is convolutions and matrix multiplications only, it exports to static INT8 and forecasts end to end on an embedded device without per-signal fitting.
