Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 2, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Time series foundation models (TSFMs) are increasingly used for probabilistic forecasting across diverse domains, yet the reliability of their uncertainty estimates remains poorly understood. In this work, we study uncertainty calibration in probabilistic TSFMs from a broader methodological and empirical perspective. We introduce a taxonomy of how TSFMs represent predictive uncertainty and develop a fine-grained evaluation framework for calibration in multi-horizon forecasting that distinguishes pooled, horizon-wise, and stronger conditional notions of calibration. Using this framework, we conduct a comprehensive empirical evaluation of popular TSFMs across diverse datasets and show that current models exhibit distinct and systematic patterns of miscalibration that standard metrics often obscure. We further analyze common post-hoc recalibration methods and characterize which forms of calibration they can improve and which tend to persist. Our results provide practical guidance for evaluating and improving uncertainty calibration in TSFMs and highlight important limitations of current practice.