Papers › What If TSF: A Benchmark for Reframing Forecasting as Scenario-Guided Multimodal Forecasting
What If TSF: A Benchmark for Reframing Forecasting as Scenario-Guided Multimodal Forecasting
Jinkwan Jang, Hyunbin Jin, Hyungjin Park, Kyubyung Chae, Taesup Kim
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Time series forecasting is critical to real-world decision making, yet most existing approaches remain unimodal and rely on extrapolating historical patterns. While recent progress in large language models (LLMs) highlights the potential for multimodal forecasting, existing benchmarks largely provide retrospective or misaligned raw context, making it unclear whether such models meaningfully leverage textual inputs. In practice, human experts incorporate what-if scenarios with historical evidence, often producing distinct forecasts from the same observations under different scenarios. Inspired by this, we introduce What If TSF (WIT), a multimodal forecasting benchmark designed to evaluate whether models can condition their forecasts on contextual text, especially future scenarios. By providing expert-crafted plausible or counterfactual scenarios, WIT offers a rigorous testbed for scenario-guided multimodal forecasting. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/jinkwan1115/WhatIfTSF.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Syntology holds the repository link but has not harvested or run code from it.
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2601.08509, was issued in January 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections