ForecastGAN: A Decomposition-Based Adversarial Framework for Multi-Horizon Time Series Forecasting

Traditional statistical models such as ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing (ES) are widely used for industrial time-series forecasting due to their simplicity and interpretability [13]. In some cases, these models demonstrate satisfactory performance but struggle with complex datasets that exhibit nonlinear features [14]. Machine learning techniques such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) emerge as promising alternatives, offering improved performance in capturing complex relationships and nonlinearity in time series data. However, these models often require more computational resources and can be less interpretable in comparison to traditional models [15]. Deep learning models currently show superior performance in various industrial forecasting tasks, including Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) s. They excel by modeling long-term dependencies and handling high-dimensional data [16]. Nevertheless, these models can be computationally intensive and might need substantial training data for optimal performance. Hybrid models, combining different techniques, are proposed to overcome the limitations of individual models. By integrating traditional models with machine learning or deep learning techniques, hybrid models improve performance and adaptability in various industrial forecasting tasks [17]. The drawback of hybrid models is they are more accurate around particular use cases and are less likely to be effective around wider conditions. While GAN s hold potential in time-series forecasting, they face challenges like training difficulty and mode collapse. Applying GAN s in time-series forecasting remains an active research area, with ongoing development of new techniques and refinements to address these challenges. A detailed discussion on time series forecasting models and their comparison is presented in one of our earlier works [18]. Furthermore, the comparison of some State of the Art (SOTA) models for long-term and short-term forecasting has been explained in detail in another paper where we have explored the strengths of some models depending upon the forecasting horizon and the chaotic element in the training data [12].

The absence of a standardized evaluation framework for GAN s initially restricted their application to fields where their outputs could be visually interpreted, such as in image generation. However, the scope of GAN s has expanded recently to include time-series data, finding applications across diverse sectors, including healthcare, finance, and the energy sector [19]. For instance, GAN s combined with auto-regressive models have been explored for enhanced sequential data generation. Techniques such as conditioning GAN s on timestamp information have been developed to manage irregular sampling intervals. In probabilistic forecasting, conditional GAN s have been increasingly utilized. For example, Koochali et al. employed a conditional GAN integrated with LSTM units for univariate time series modeling, testing it on both synthetic and real-world datasets [20]. Another study used a Conditional GAN with LSTM and Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) components for predicting daily stock closing prices, incorporating Mean Square Error (MSE) with the generator loss to enhance performance [21]. Zhou et al. applied LSTM and CNN in an adversarial training framework for forecasting in the high-frequency stock market, focusing on minimizing forecast errors such as Mean Absolute Error (MAE) or MSE alongside the GAN ’s objective function [22].

Lin et al. proposed a traffic flow forecasting model sensitive to pattern variations, capable of providing accurate predictions in abnormal conditions without compromising regular performance [23]. This model uses a cGAN with an MLP structure and introduces two additional error terms to the standard generator loss, focusing on forecast error and reconstruction error. These advancements demonstrate the growing versatility and applicability of GAN s in time series forecasting across various sectors. Some of the popular GAN s architectures and their applications have been shown in the Appendix in Table 5.

To design a multivariate forecasting model consider multivariate time-series $X={X_{0},X_{1},...,X_{T}}$, where each $X_{t}={x_{t,1},x_{t,2},...,x_{t,f}}$ represents a feature vector at time step $t$, with $f$ being the number of feature set and $x_{t,f}$ denotes the data point at time step $t$ for feature $f$. The look-back or the sliding window is the span of past time steps to make predictions. Let $S$ be the sliding window size and $T$ be the future timesteps or the forecasting horizon. Given the historical data $X={\{X_{1}^{t},X_{2}^{t},...,X_{f}^{t}\}}_{t=1}^{S}$ the objective for this architecture is to predict the future values $\hat{X}={\{\hat{X}_{1}^{t},\hat{X}_{2}^{t},...,\hat{X}_{f}^{t}\}}_{t=S+1}^{S+T}$ where $X_{i}^{t}$ is the value of variable $i$ at timestep $t$, $\hat{X}_{i}^{t}$ is the predicted value after $T$ timesteps. For $T=1$, the forecasting model only gives point-wise predictions rather than a future trend. For $T>1$ the forecasting model uses single-step forecasting iteratively to predict $HT$ future values where $H$ is the multiplying factor for the number of steps in predictions. This is called iterative multi-step forecasting, which is used in this paper. In iterative multi-step forecasting, the one-step prediction is made, and for the next step, this predicted value is fed back into the model. The prediction process for iterative multi-step forecast can be given by equation 1.

The other method for predicting the next steps is direct multi-step forecasting, in which separate models are trained for each forecasting step. Each model directly predicts the value of the time series at a specific future time step. This approach can mathematically be represented as equation 2.

Each approach has theoretical advantages and limitations. Iterative methods can accumulate errors over multiple steps, particularly when the forecasting model has significant uncertainty. Conversely, direct methods require training multiple models, increasing computational complexity but potentially yielding higher accuracy for specific horizons. For medium to large values of $T$, direct multi-step forecasting often produces more accurate results by optimizing each model for its specific target horizon. ForecastGAN leverages this insight by employing a model selection approach that considers the specific forecasting horizon.

Harvey and Peters [24] initially presented the idea of decomposing time series data into multiple cyclic and ordered sets, proposing that the original data can be divided into trend, seasonality, and holiday components. Classical decomposition theory separates a time series into:

Where $T_{t}$ represents trend, $S_{t}$ represents seasonality, and $R_{t}$ represents residuals or irregular components. This decomposition provides several theoretical advantages:

• •

  Complexity Reduction: By isolating predictable patterns (trend and seasonality), the forecasting task becomes more manageable [25].

• •

  Component-Specific Modeling: Different components may benefit from different modeling approaches. For instance, trend components often exhibit smoother patterns suitable for linear models, while seasonal components may require more flexible nonlinear approaches [26].

• •

  Feature Enhancement: Decomposition effectively creates new features that capture different temporal dynamics, enriching the information available to subsequent modeling stages [27].

Some famous examples of using decomposition as a preprocessing tool for historical data are seen in Prophet [26] where the input data is divided into a trend, seasonality, and holiday components,Neural Basis Expansion Analysis for Interpretable Time Series (N-BEATS) model [28] uses a similar concept in basis expansion for univariate time series point forecasting and DeepGLO [29] uses the concept of dividing the original time series in $k$ basis time series with matrix factorization .

In our implementation, we employ average pooling with appropriate padding to extract trend components, following the approach in [25]. The trend cyclic component captures the long-term data trends, and seasonality captures the apparent effects of certain time elements on the underlying value. Consider the original time series as $X\in\mathbb{R}^{Nxf}$ where $N$ is the length of the series and $f$ is the number of features. The extracted trend $X_{t}\in\mathbb{R}^{Nxf}$ and $X_{s}\in\mathbb{R}^{Nxf}$ components can be given as:

where the Average Pooling (AvgPool) is used to divide the series into overlapping (or non-overlapping) regions and compute the average. This moving average operation is used to smooth the fluctuations in the data, making the series easier to predict. Padding is used to control the spatial dimensions of the series, i.e., to keep the length of the series the same as the original.

Transformer models have demonstrated exceptional capabilities for long-term forecasting but often underperform in short-term scenarios. This limitation has a theoretical basis in the architecture’s design:

• •

  Self-Attention Mechanism: Transformers rely on self-attention mechanisms that are inherently permutation-invariant. While positional encoding attempts to preserve temporal order, some temporal information is lost, particularly for fine-grained short-term patterns [11, 30].

• •

  Parameter Efficiency: Transformer models typically contain millions of parameters, which may lead to overfitting when applied to short-term forecasting with limited data points [25].

• •

  Context Window Utilization: For short-term forecasting, local patterns within a small temporal neighborhood often contain most of the relevant information. Transformers’ global attention mechanisms may unnecessarily distribute focus across the entire sequence [31, 32].

These theoretical considerations suggest that simpler models, such as linear networks with appropriate embeddings, might outperform transformers for short-term forecasting tasks [11]. This insight motivates our Model Selection Module, which can adaptively choose between different model architectures based on the forecasting horizon.

Adversarial training offers a theoretical framework for enhancing model robustness by exposing the model to challenging examples during training [33]. In the context of time series forecasting, this approach addresses several fundamental challenges. Time series data often exhibits distribution shifts between training and testing periods. Adversarial training helps models become more robust to such shifts. Deterministic forecasting models provide point estimates without capturing prediction uncertainty. Adversarial frameworks, particularly GANs, learn the conditional distribution of future values, inherently capturing uncertainty. In time series with multiple possible futures, standard forecasting models might average across possibilities, producing unrealistic predictions. GANs can potentially capture multimodal future distributions.

Adversarial training is a technique employed to improve the generalization and robustness of models against adversarial attacks [33]. It involves training a model with clean and adversarially perturbed examples to make it more robust to small but intentionally worst-case perturbations. Consider a predicting model $f_{\theta}$ with parameters $\theta$ and input $X$ and $Y$ as the ground truth. The adversarial example $X^{\prime}$ is generated by adding a small perturbation $\lambda$ to $X$ such that $X^{\prime}=X+\lambda$ and $\lambda$ is designed to maximize the loss $\mathcal{L}(f_{\theta}(X^{\prime}),Y)$. Thus, the objective in adversarial training for a data distribution $\mathcal{D}$ reduces to a min-max optimization task:

Transitioning from deterministic to probabilistic models can further enhance the robustness of the predictive models [34]. In a deterministic model, the output $f_{\theta}(x)$ is a single point estimate, but a probabilistic model predicts a distribution over possible outcomes. This shift can be achieved by modeling the output as a random variable and using Bayesian methods or variational inference[35]. Mathematically, for the predicted output $\hat{Y}$ instead of predicting $\hat{Y}=f_{\theta}(X)$, a probabilistic model predicts $\hat{Y}\sim P(Y|X,\theta)$ which is a probability distribution parameterized by $\theta$. The architecture for cGAN is shown in Fig. 2.

The generator functions as the probabilistic model, while the discriminator provides essential gradients for optimizing the generator during its training phase. To learn $P(X_{t+T}|X_{t},...,X_{0})$, we utilize historical data ${X_{t},...,X_{0}}$ as the condition in the cGAN. The generator is tasked with producing $X_{t+T}$, thereby learning the probability distribution equivalent to $P(X_{t+T}|X_{t},...,X_{0})$, which is the desired target distribution. The value function employed in the training of GAN (the probabilistic forecast model) is formulated as follows:

where $min_{G}$ $max_{D}$ represents the min-max game between the generator $G$ and discriminator $D$. $V(D,G)$ is the value function for the GAN. $log(D(x))$ is the logarithm of the probability that $D$ assigns to real data, where $x$ is the real data. $log(1-D(G(z)))$ is the logarithm of the probability that $D$ assigns to fake data where $G(z)$ is the real data.

This probabilistic framework enables the model to quantify uncertainty in its predictions, which can be particularly valuable in adversarial settings. Training the model to predict distributions rather than point estimates makes it more adept at handling the variability and uncertainty introduced by adversarial perturbations, ultimately leading to more robust and reliable forecasting systems.

The aggregator block outputs the data according to the set look-back window size. This represents the extent of consolidating the past data and is indicative of how much micro-level information is needed for the said prediction step. For example, for single-step prediction i.e., $T=1$ a value of $S=96$ can lose information necessary for good predictions. The impact of the sliding window size is discussed in detail in Section 6. For the aggregator, mean is used for the continuous variables and mode is used for the categorical variable values.

The Decomposition Module serves as the preprocessing foundation for the forecasting architecture. It transforms raw multivariate time series data into a format that highlights relevant patterns and preserves the information content of different feature types. For each numerical feature, the module performs time series decomposition using the following approach:

• •

  Trend Extraction: Apply average pooling with appropriate padding to extract the cyclic-trend component:

  $$X_{t}=\text{AvgPool}(\text{Padding}(X))$$

  (8)

• •

  Seasonality Extraction: Subtract the trend component from the original series to obtain the seasonal component:

  $$X_{s}=X-X_{t}$$

  (9)

This decomposition isolates predictable patterns (trend and seasonality), making the forecasting task more manageable for subsequent modules.

The Model Selection Module identifies the optimal model architecture for a given dataset and forecasting horizon. This module addresses the observation that different model architectures exhibit varying performance characteristics depending on the specific forecasting task.

The Adversarial Training Module enhances the selected model through conditional GAN training. This approach transforms the deterministic forecasting model into a probabilistic one, improving its robustness and generalization capabilities. The module consists of two primary components: The Generator is the best model selected by the Model Selection Module serves as the generator. It takes historical time series data as input and generates future predictions. While the Discriminator is a neural network that distinguishes between real and generated time series data. The discriminator architecture includes the input layer accepting the concatenated time series data and conditional information. Hidden layers have Dense layers with LeakyReLU activation, batch normalization, and dropout for regularization. The output layer is a single unit with sigmoid activation that outputs the probability of the input being real. The adversarial training process involves two alternating steps:

• •

  Discriminator Training:

  • –

    Sample real data from the training set

  • –

    Generate fake data using the generator

  • –

    Compute discriminator loss for real data:

    $$\mathcal{L}{\text{real}}=\text{BCE}(D(X{\text{real}}|c),1)$$

    (17)

  • –

    Compute discriminator loss for fake data:

    $$\mathcal{L}{\text{fake}}=\text{BCE}(D(G(z|c)),0)$$

    (18)

  • –

    Update discriminator parameters to minimize the combined loss:

    $$\mathcal{L}D=\mathcal{L}{\text{real}}+\mathcal{L}{\text{fake}}$$

    (19)

• •

  Generator Training:

  • –

    Generate fake data using the generator

  • –

    Compute adversarial loss to fool the discriminator:

    $$\mathcal{L}_{G}=\text{BCE}(D(G(z|c)),1)$$

    (20)

  • –

    Update generator parameters to minimize the adversarial loss

where BCE represents binary cross-entropy loss, $D$ is the discriminator, $G$ is the generator, $z$ is random noise, and $c$ is the conditional information (historical time series data).

The computational complexity of ForecastGAN can be analyzed for each module: For the Decomposition Module, the complexity is dominated by the average pooling operation, which has a complexity of $O(nf)$, where $n$ is the number of time steps and $f$ is the number of features. In Model Selection Module, the linear models have training complexity of $O(nfd)$, where $d$ is the dimensionality of the feature space after decomposition and embedding. Evaluating all four model variants has a complexity of $O(4nfd)$. Lastly, for the Adversarial Training Module, the complexity depends on the selected model architecture and the number of training epochs. For a linear generator, the complexity is approximately $O(enfd)$, where $e$ is the number of epochs.

The overall computational complexity of ForecastGAN is therefore $O(nf+4nfd+enfd)=O(nfd(4+e))$, which is significantly lower than transformer-based approaches with complexity on the order of $O(n^{2}d)$ due to the self-attention mechanisms [11]. In practice, this translates to faster training times. For example, on the ETTh1 dataset with $T=96$, ForecastGAN trains in approximately 15 minutes on a single NVIDIA RTX GPU, compared to over an hour for transformer-based models like Informer on the same hardware [36].

Extensive experiments are conducted for eleven standard real-world multivariate time series datasets for long-term forecasting. The complete details of these datasets are given in 1.

The datasets represent a wide range of forecasting challenges:

• •

  ETT (Electricity Transformer Temperature): Four datasets (ETTh1, ETTh2, ETTm1, ETTm2) containing power load and oil temperature readings at different temporal resolutions. These datasets are widely used benchmarks for long-term forecasting [36].

• •

  Productivity: Records garment employee productivity measured hourly during 9-hour daily shifts. The target metric is the normalized productivity value between 0 and 1. This dataset contains both numerical and categorical features, making it particularly suitable for evaluating our framework’s ability to handle mixed feature types [37].

• •

  Electricity: Contains hourly electricity consumption measurements for 321 customers. This high-dimensional dataset tests the framework’s scalability to large feature spaces [38].

• •

  Illness: Weekly records of patients with flu-like illnesses from the CDC, featuring strong seasonal patterns and challenging long-term dependencies [39].

• •

  Traffic: Hourly road occupancy rates measured by sensors on San Francisco Bay Area freeways. With 862 features, this is the highest-dimensional dataset in our evaluation [40].

• •

  Weather: Weather condition measurements in Germany for 2020, featuring diverse meteorological variables with complex interdependencies [41].

• •

  Exchange Rate: Daily exchange rates for 8 countries, characterized by high volatility and non-stationarity [40].

• •

  Stock Price: Daily closing prices of major stock indices including S&P 500, NASDAQ, Dow Jones, Russell 2000, and NYSE Composite from 2010 to 2017 [42].

These datasets were selected to represent a diverse range of forecasting challenges, including different temporal resolutions (from 5 minutes to 1 week), dimensionality (from 7 to 862 features), domains (energy, transportation, health, finance, etc.), and temporal characteristics (seasonal patterns, trends, volatility, etc.).

For each dataset, we applied the following preprocessing steps:

1. 1.

   Missing Value Handling: Missing values were imputed using forward fill followed by backward fill to ensure completeness.

2. 2.

   Normalization: Numerical features were normalized using min-max scaling to the range [0,1] to ensure consistent scale across features.

3. 3.

   Train-Validation-Test Split: Each dataset was divided into training (70%), validation (10%), and testing (20%) sets using temporal splits rather than random sampling to preserve the chronological order of observations. This approach ensures that future data is not used to predict past events, maintaining the integrity of the forecasting task.

Figure 5 in the Appendix illustrates the data distributions across train and test sets for all datasets, highlighting the differences in distribution that make certain datasets particularly challenging.

To evaluate performance across different forecasting scenarios, we conducted experiments with multiple prediction horizons:

• •

  Long-term Forecasting: Horizons of $T\in\{96,192,336,720\}$ time steps for most datasets, with $T\in\{24,36,48,60\}$ for the Illness dataset due to its weekly sampling rate.

• •

  Short-term Forecasting: Horizons of $T\in\{12,24,32,48\}$ time steps for most datasets, with $T\in\{2,6,8,10\}$ for the Illness dataset.

• •

  Single-step Forecasting: Horizon of $T=1$ to evaluate immediate next-step prediction performance.

For each forecasting horizon, we experimented with different look-back window sizes to identify optimal configurations. The primary look-back window sizes used were $S=96$ for long-term forecasting, $S=12$ for short-term forecasting, and $S=1$ for single-step forecasting, with adjustments for the Illness dataset ($S=24$, $S=2$, and $S=1$ respectively).

We compared ForecastGAN against two groups of baseline models:

For comparative evaluation purposes, baseline results for Informer, Robformer, TimeXer and Pathformer were sourced from the comprehensive benchmarking study by [11] and their original papers [43, 44, 46]. Results for Crossformer were partially obtained from the original publication, while additional evaluations—specifically for ETTm2, ETTh2, and alternative forecasting windows across other datasets—were independently reproduced using the official implementation available in the authors’ repository¹¹1https://github.com/Thinklab-SJTU/Crossformer. All ForecastGAN experiments and additional baseline evaluations were conducted on a high-performance computing environment equipped with dual NVIDIA Titan RTX GPUs (24GB GDDR6 memory each), utilizing CUDA 12.2 to optimize GPU acceleration and parallel processing capabilities.

We evaluated model performance using two standard metrics for regression tasks:

1. 1.

   Mean Absolute Error (MAE): Measures the average absolute difference between predictions and ground truth:

   $$\text{MAE}=\frac{1}{H}\sum_{i=1}^{H}|y_{T+i}-\hat{y}_{T+i}|$$

   (22)

2. 2.

   Mean Squared Error (MSE): Measures the average squared difference between predictions and ground truth:

   $$\text{MSE}=\frac{1}{H}\sum_{i=1}^{H}(y_{T+i}-\hat{y}_{T+i})^{2}$$

   (23)

where $H$ is the forecast horizon, $T$ is the length of the look-back window, $y$ is the ground truth, and $\hat{y}$ is the predicted value. These metrics were chosen for their interpretability and compatibility with previous forecasting literature, enabling direct comparisons with state-of-the-art approaches.

For long-term forecasting, ForecastGAN is compared against six state-of-the-art models including both transformer-based architectures (Informer, Crossformer, TimeXer) and specialized time series models (Robformer, Pathformer, Client). This comprehensive comparison is justified as these models employ direct multi-step forecasting rather than iterative approaches, which are known to suffer from error accumulation over longer horizons. Table 3 presents the comparative results across nine benchmark datasets with varying forecasting horizons. Results marked with $*$ indicate values that were evaluated using publicly available repositories, while other baseline results were obtained from previously published benchmarks [11, 47]. ForecastGAN demonstrates strong performance across multiple datasets, with the most substantial improvements observed on the Exchange Rate dataset (average improvement of 26.73% across all horizons) and ETTm1 dataset (average improvement of 10.77%). The results show particular strength in capturing complex patterns for datasets with pronounced seasonality and trend components. Conversely, more modest performance is observed for the Traffic dataset, where ForecastGAN shows an average improvement of -3.66% compared to the best baseline, with Client model outperforming for longer horizons. For datasets with less pronounced temporal patterns, Linear or NLinear models are selected, demonstrating the effectiveness of the Model Selection Module in identifying appropriate architectures for different data characteristics.

An important observation is that ForecastGAN’s performance advantage tends to decrease as forecasting horizons increase, particularly for horizons beyond 336 time steps. This pattern is most evident in the ETTh2 and Electricity datasets, where Pathformer demonstrates competitive performance for horizons of 336 and 720. Similarly, for the Illness dataset with its unique weekly sampling rate, ForecastGAN performs slightly inferior to Pathformer at the longest horizon (60 steps). This suggests that while ForecastGAN excels at capturing both short and medium-term dependencies, extremely long-term forecasting remains challenging for all approaches. Despite these trade-offs, ForecastGAN maintains significant computational advantages over transformer-based alternatives. With fewer parameters and more efficient training, ForecastGAN achieves competitive or superior performance while requiring substantially less computational resources than models like Informer or Crossformer, which contain millions of parameters. This efficiency makes ForecastGAN particularly suitable for real-world applications with computational constraints. The sensitivity to look-back window size, illustrated in Figure 4, further explains performance variations across different forecasting horizons. ForecastGAN performs optimally when the look-back window size is closer to the prediction step $T$, providing a practical guideline for implementation in various forecasting scenarios.

To evaluate ForecastGAN’s versatility across different forecasting horizons, we conducted extensive experiments focused on short-term forecasting, comparing against specialized time series models including transformer-based architectures and linear variants. Table 7 presents detailed results at specific short-term horizons (24 and 48 timesteps) across multiple benchmark datasets. The results demonstrate ForecastGAN’s consistent advantage over existing approaches in short-term forecasting regimes. Across all datasets and horizons, ForecastGAN achieves an average improvement of 7.90% compared to the next best model, with individual improvements ranging from marginal gains to substantial performance differences. The most significant improvements are observed on the Electricity dataset at the 48-hour horizon (26.21% reduction in MSE compared to DLinear) and Weather dataset at the 48-hour horizon (15.18% improvement over Informer).

ForecastGAN’s performance advantage is particularly notable when compared against transformer architectures like Informer and Crossformer, which were specifically designed for sequence modeling. Despite their sophisticated attention mechanisms, these models consistently underperform compared to ForecastGAN in short-term contexts. For instance, on the ETTh2 dataset at the 24-hour horizon, ForecastGAN achieves an MSE of 0.170 compared to Crossformer’s 0.207, representing an 11.98% improvement over the next best competitor (DLinear at 0.193). When examining horizon-specific performance, we observe that ForecastGAN maintains its advantage across both the 24-hour and 48-hour forecasting windows. For the shortest 24-hour horizon, ForecastGAN achieves the best performance on five out of six datasets, with particularly strong results on ETTm1 (MSE of 0.071, tied with PatchTST) and ETTm2 (MSE of 0.081, outperforming PatchTST’s 0.086 by 5.81%). For the 48-hour horizon, ForecastGAN consistently outperforms all competitors across all datasets, with improvements ranging from 2.80% to 26.21%. The detailed results also reveal that while models like TS-Fastformer, PatchTST, and DLinear occasionally show competitive performance on specific datasets and horizons, none match ForecastGAN’s consistent excellence across the entire benchmark suite. This validates our hypothesis that transformer models, while effective for long-term dependencies, have inherent limitations for short-term forecasting that ForecastGAN successfully addresses through its modular architecture.

The look-back window size $S$ is a crucial hyperparameter that determines how much historical data is used for forecasting. We conducted a sensitivity analysis by varying $S$ while keeping the prediction horizon $T$ fixed. Figure 4 presents the results for two representative datasets (Electricity and Traffic) across three forecasting horizons ($T\in{24,96,720}$). The analysis reveals that ForecastGAN’s performance is influenced by the look-back window size in several consistent ways. First, the optimal window size is generally proportional to the forecasting horizon, with performance improving as $S$ approaches $T$ for shorter horizons. Second, all models exhibit diminishing returns when the window size exceeds certain thresholds, with some showing performance degradation with excessively large windows. This is likely due to the inclusion of less relevant historical data that introduces noise rather than signal. The sensitivity patterns also display dataset-specific characteristics. The Traffic dataset shows more pronounced sensitivity to window size variations than the Electricity dataset, particularly at medium-term horizons ($T=96$). For long-term forecasting ($T=720$), ForecastGAN maintains its performance advantage across a wider range of window sizes, demonstrating its robustness to this hyperparameter in long-horizon scenarios. Based on these findings, we recommend setting $S\approx T$ for short-term forecasting and $S\approx 0.5T$ for long-term forecasting as practical starting points. These guidelines help explain ForecastGAN’s superior performance in our benchmark comparisons, as the model benefits from appropriate window sizing that balances relevant historical context with computational efficiency.

Beyond forecasting accuracy, ForecastGAN demonstrates exceptional computational efficiency compared to other benchmark models. For the ETTh1 dataset with T=96, ForecastGAN requires only 15.2 minutes of training time, which is 2.5-4.3× faster than transformer-based alternatives like Informer (64.7 min), Crossformer (58.9 min), and PatchTST (38.2 min). Memory requirements are similarly reduced, with ForecastGAN using just 2.3 GB of GPU memory compared to Crossformer’s 6.2 GB, Informer’s 5.8 GB, and Client’s 4.2 GB. Perhaps most striking is the parameter efficiency – ForecastGAN contains only 0.18 million parameters, while models like Crossformer and Informer require over 8 and 7 million parameters respectively. This dramatic reduction in model complexity not only improves training and inference speed (processing 1,000 test samples in 0.87 seconds compared to 2.14-4.56 seconds for transformer models) but also enhances generalization on limited training data. These efficiency advantages make ForecastGAN particularly suitable for real-time applications and resource-constrained environments where computational costs are a significant consideration alongside forecasting accuracy.

While ForecastGAN demonstrates impressive performance across diverse datasets and forecasting horizons, several limitations merit consideration. The current Model Selection Module only considers variations of linear models, which, while computationally efficient, potentially constrains performance on certain complex datasets. As shown in our short-term forecasting results, even with these limited model choices, ForecastGAN achieves substantial improvements (average 7.90% across datasets, with up to 26.21% on the Electricity dataset), suggesting that expanding the selection to include more diverse architectures could yield further gains. Additionally, our look-back window sensitivity analysis reveals that ForecastGAN’s performance varies with hyperparameter settings, particularly for the Traffic dataset at medium horizons (T=96), where selecting appropriate window sizes is critical. Though we provide empirical guidelines based on our findings, automatic hyperparameter optimization would enhance usability for practitioners unfamiliar with time series characteristics. For extremely long forecasting horizons (T=720), our comparative results indicate that ForecastGAN’s advantage over models like PatchTST and Client decreases, with improvements of just 6.18% on ETTh1 and occasionally being outperformed on ETTh2. This suggests that additional mechanisms might be needed to better capture very long-term dependencies, particularly for datasets with complex cyclical patterns. Finally, despite leveraging an adversarial training framework that theoretically supports probabilistic forecasting, our current implementation only outputs point forecasts. As demonstrated in our single-step forecasting comparison (where ForecastGAN significantly outperforms traditional probabilistic models like Bayesian Ridge Regression), extending the framework to provide prediction intervals would enhance its utility for applications requiring uncertainty quantification. These limitations represent promising directions for future research that could further strengthen ForecastGAN’s versatility across forecasting scenarios.