Pretrained time‑series foundation models markedly improve crop price forecasts: zero‑shot TSFMs outperform traditional and deep learning methods and beat USDA futures-based season‑average forecasts on three of four major commodities; Time‑MoE cuts forecast errors by 54.9% on wheat and 18.5% on corn in recent years.

Main Finding

Pre-trained time-series foundation models (TSFMs) substantially improve agricultural price forecasting relative to traditional time-series, machine learning, and deep-learning models trained from scratch. Zero-shot TSFMs — applied without domain-specific fine-tuning and using only univariate historical prices — rank at the top for monthly and marketing-year-average (MYA) forecasts. Time-MoE delivers the largest gains (e.g., 54.9% MAE improvement on wheat and 18.5% on corn versus USDA ERS SAP on recent data), while USDA’s futures-plus-basis SAP remains best for cotton.

Key Points

• Scope and benchmark
  • Data: USDA ERS/NASS monthly farm price series for corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton (1997–2025).
  • Operational benchmark: USDA ERS Season-Average Price (SAP) forecasts (futures-plus-basis method), which incorporate forward-looking futures-market information.
• Models evaluated
  • 17 models across four classes: traditional time-series (ARIMA, ETS, STL, Prophet, Naive), machine learning (Random Forest, XGBoost), deep learning trained from scratch (LSTM, N-BEATS, TFT, DeepAR), and five state-of-the-art TSFMs (Chronos, Chronos-2, TimesFM 2.5, Time-MoE, Moirai-2).
  • Representative TSFM details cited: Chronos (≈200M params), Chronos-2 (MoE, ≈120M), TimesFM (pre-trained on large corpora), Time-MoE (sparse MoE, ≈50M), Moirai-2 (quantile/multi-token).
• Evaluation design
  • Unified framework: identical data, horizons, and metrics; monthly forecasts up to 12 months and annual MYA forecasts.
  • Extensive backtesting: 1,088 forecasts across 64 train–test splits, covering major disruptions (2008 crisis, 2012 drought, COVID).
  • Metrics: RMSE and MAE; MYA comparisons against USDA SAP (and a “recent” subperiod 2017–2024 excluding COVID used for some reported improvements).
• Main empirical results
  • All five TSFMs occupy top-five ranks for monthly forecasting accuracy; Time-MoE has the smallest RMSE and MAE.
  • Deep-learning models trained from scratch perform poorly (ranked ~10–16); the Naive model ranks 6th, illustrating how data scarcity favors simpler methods unless pre-training is used.
  • MYA (season-average) forecasts: TSFMs outperform USDA ERS SAP on wheat (13 of 17 models beat USDA; Time-MoE: 54.9% MAE improvement), show meaningful gains on corn (Time-MoE: 18.5% MAE improvement) and soybeans (TimesFM: 6.9%), but USDA remains superior for cotton.
  • Smaller mixture-of-experts architectures (sparse MoE) outperform larger dense transformers in this domain.
• Robustness and caveats reported in the paper
  • TSFMs evaluated in zero-shot univariate setting (no exogenous covariates); USDA SAP uses futures and basis information.
  • Heterogeneity across commodities — cotton remains challenging.
  • References debate on generality of zero-shot transfer (e.g., Karaouli et al., 2025); pre-training domain matters.

Data & Methods

• Data
  • Monthly farm-price series (USDA NASS / ERS) for:
    • Corn and soybeans: September 1997 – August 2025 (marketing year Sep–Aug)
    • Wheat: June 1997 – August 2025 (marketing year Jun–May)
    • Cotton: August 1997 – August 2025 (marketing year Aug–Jul)
  • Auxiliary series used by USDA benchmark: nearby futures prices (LSEG), basis (cash–futures), marketing percentages (5-year or 7-year Olympic averages) to compute marketing-year weights.
  • Sample spans major shocks and structural changes, enabling evaluation of robustness.
• Forecasting tasks
  • Short-term monthly forecasts (horizons up to 12 months).
  • Annual Marketing-Year-Average (MYA / SAP) forecasting: models predict season-average price aggregated using marketing percentages, compared to USDA ERS SAP.
• Models and training
  • Classical and ML methods estimated per series; deep-learning models trained from scratch with hyperparameter search and regularization.
  • TSFMs applied zero-shot (no commodity-specific fine-tuning), using only historical monthly prices (univariate).
  • Evaluation uses common rolling/train-test splits (64 splits) and computes RMSE/MAE across 1,088 forecast instances.
• Key methodological findings
  • Zero-shot TSFMs generalize effectively despite limited target-series length (200–400 monthly observations).
  • Sparse mixture-of-experts designs (Time-MoE) deliver strong performance per parameter and beat larger dense models.
  • Deep models without pre-training overfit / underperform in data-poor economic time series.

Implications for AI Economics

• Practical forecasting and policy
  • TSFMs can materially improve economically-significant forecasts (MYA/SAP) that feed farm-program payment calculations and WASDE reporting. Even modest forecast improvements can have large fiscal and operational effects given the scale of agricultural programs.
  • Zero-shot application reduces dependence on local, high-quality labeled data and domain-specific model development, lowering barriers for public agencies and firms to adopt advanced methods.
• Model design and deployment
  • Pre-training on massive, diverse time-series corpora appears crucial for data-scarce economic domains; sparse MoE architectures offer strong accuracy-to-cost tradeoffs.
  • Reliance on univariate zero-shot TSFMs suggests straightforward operational pipelines (no expensive covariate collection), but integrating exogenous information (futures, weather, stocks) may yield further gains and deserves exploration.
• Research directions in AI & economics
  • Evaluate TSFMs when fine-tuned with domain data and when supplied with exogenous drivers; compare probabilistic forecasts (quantiles) and decision-relevant loss functions.
  • Test transferability across other policy-relevant, data-scarce economic series (regional prices, labor markets, firm-level outcomes).
  • Study the extent to which TSFM improvements reflect true signal extraction versus over-reliance on pretraining priors; perform stress tests around structural breaks and rare shocks.
• Governance and interpretability
  • Policy use requires robustness, transparency, and auditability. Foundation models’ black-box nature raises interpretability and accountability challenges (model audits, uncertainty quantification, and communication to stakeholders).
  • Institutional adoption (USDA, regulators) should combine model-based improvements with conservative governance: ensemble checks, counterfactual validation, and explicit incorporation of market information when available.
• Limits and cautions
  • Results are for zero-shot univariate TSFM use; USDA SAP incorporates forward-looking futures data and expert inputs (WASDE). Gains are commodity-specific (e.g., cotton exception).
  • Pre-training domain mismatch can limit transfer — further work is needed to map which pretraining corpora and architectures best serve particular economic subdomains.

Summary takeaway: Pre-trained time-series foundation models — particularly sparse mixture-of-experts architectures like Time-MoE — offer a meaningful paradigm shift for forecasting in data-scarce economic domains such as agricultural prices. They can outperform traditional benchmarks (including USDA ERS SAP in several major commodities) in zero-shot settings, but practical adoption should proceed with robustness checks, incorporation of exogenous market signals, and governance to ensure reliable policy deployment.