Zero-shot time-series foundation models against the Khepri v1.5 baselines for 96-hour carbon-intensity forecasts in nine Nordic bidding zones: a preregistered comparison

We compare three zero-shot time-series foundation models (Timestral-5M, Timestral-209M and Chronos-2, 8192-hour context, no covariates) with the Khepri v1.5 SARIMA and GBM baselines, with their code and hyperparameters unchanged, for 96-hour forecasts of hourly carbon intensity in the Nordic bidding zones NO1-NO5 and SE1-SE4. The design, the analysis code and a minimum detectable effect (MDE) were timestamped before any foundation-model forecast by an OpenTimestamps proof (Bitcoin-confirmed) and the GPG-signed tag prereg-v1; the proofs are archived in Zenodo (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.23881315). The preregistration was also submitted to OSF Registries 2026-11-02 07:49 UTC (osf.io/hncz5; embargo requested, pending OSF approval). On the 2025 test (361 daily origins, contamination not ruled out) all three models have a lower zone-averaged MAPE than both baselines, by 0.952 to 1.347 percentage points (Diebold-Mariano with the Harvey-Leybourne-Newbold correction, all p < 0.0001), and each beats SARIMA in 9 of 9 zones. On a post-release holdout of 14 origins from 2026-10-16 the point estimates have the same sign (0.729 to 1.326 percentage points lower), but all lie within the preregistered MDE of 2.989 points and are reported as not determined. For calibration (RQ4) the preregistration locked a Diebold-Mariano-HLN test on CRPS; the MDE applies to MAPE only. Holdout CRPS point estimates (n = 14) are 1.1114 (Timestral-5M), 1.0733 (Timestral-209M) and 1.1198 (Chronos-2) against 1.4165 gCO2-eq/kWh for SARIMA (each p < 0.0001). The SARIMA quantiles are constructed from the fitted model's Gaussian predictive distribution (deviation D-03), not taken from a native v1.5 forecast, so the difference may partly reflect the SARIMA intervals. The contamination indicator does not exceed its preregistered threshold for any comparison; with 14 holdout origins it has low power (HAC standard errors 0.124 to 0.360 pp).

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
arXiv (Cornell University)
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2611.02895
Primary Topic
Energy Load and Power Forecasting
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Zero-shot time-series foundation models against the Khepri v1.5 baselines for 96-hour carbon-intensity forecasts in nine Nordic bidding zones: a preregistered comparison

Eirik Botten Nicolaysen
arXiv (Cornell University)
Energy Load and Power Forecasting
preprint

Zero-shot time-series foundation models against the Khepri v1.5 baselines for 96-hour carbon-intensity forecasts in nine Nordic bidding zones: a preregistered comparison

Eirik Botten Nicolaysen
preprint en

Abstract

We compare three zero-shot time-series foundation models (Timestral-5M, Timestral-209M and Chronos-2, 8192-hour context, no covariates) with the Khepri v1.5 SARIMA and GBM baselines, with their code and hyperparameters unchanged, for 96-hour forecasts of hourly carbon intensity in the Nordic bidding zones NO1-NO5 and SE1-SE4. The design, the analysis code and a minimum detectable effect (MDE) were timestamped before any foundation-model forecast by an OpenTimestamps proof (Bitcoin-confirmed) and the GPG-signed tag prereg-v1; the proofs are archived in Zenodo (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.23881315). The preregistration was also submitted to OSF Registries 2026-11-02 07:49 UTC (osf.io/hncz5; embargo requested, pending OSF approval). On the 2025 test (361 daily origins, contamination not ruled out) all three models have a lower zone-averaged MAPE than both baselines, by 0.952 to 1.347 percentage points (Diebold-Mariano with the Harvey-Leybourne-Newbold correction, all p < 0.0001), and each beats SARIMA in 9 of 9 zones. On a post-release holdout of 14 origins from 2026-10-16 the point estimates have the same sign (0.729 to 1.326 percentage points lower), but all lie within the preregistered MDE of 2.989 points and are reported as not determined. For calibration (RQ4) the preregistration locked a Diebold-Mariano-HLN test on CRPS; the MDE applies to MAPE only. Holdout CRPS point estimates (n = 14) are 1.1114 (Timestral-5M), 1.0733 (Timestral-209M) and 1.1198 (Chronos-2) against 1.4165 gCO2-eq/kWh for SARIMA (each p < 0.0001). The SARIMA quantiles are constructed from the fitted model's Gaussian predictive distribution (deviation D-03), not taken from a native v1.5 forecast, so the difference may partly reflect the SARIMA intervals. The contamination indicator does not exceed its preregistered threshold for any comparison; with 14 holdout origins it has low power (HAC standard errors 0.124 to 0.360 pp).

arXiv (Cornell University)
Energy Load and Power Forecasting
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon