Time series are critical for decision-making in fields like finance and healthcare. Their importance has driven a recent influx of works passing time series into language models, leading to non-trivial forecasting on some datasets. But it remains unknown whether non-trivial forecasting implies that language models can reason about time series. To address this gap, we generate a first-of-its-kind evaluation framework for time series reasoning, including formal tasks and a corresponding dataset of multi-scale time series paired with text captions across ten domains. Using these data, we probe whether language models achieve three forms of reasoning: (1) Etiological Reasoning—given an input time series, can the language model identify the scenario that most likely created it? (2) Question Answering—can a language model answer factual questions about time series? (3) Context-Aided Forecasting–does highly relevant textual context improve a language model’s time series forecasts? We find that otherwise highly-capable language models demonstrate surprisingly limited time series reasoning: they score marginally above random on etiological and question answering tasks (up to 30 percentage points worse than humans) and show modest success in using context to improve forecasting. These weakness showcase that time series reasoning is an impactful, yet deeply underdeveloped direction for language model research. We also make our datasets public to support further research in this direction.

Data-driven scientific discovery requires the iterative integration of scientific domain knowledge, statistical expertise, and an understanding of data semantics to make nuanced analytical decisions, e.g., about which variables, transformations, and statistical models to consider. LM-based agents equipped with planning, memory, and code execution capabilities have the potential to support data-driven science. However, evaluating agents on such open-ended tasks is challenging due to multiple valid approaches, partially correct steps, and different ways to express the same decisions. To address these challenges, we present BLADE, a benchmark to automatically evaluate agents’ multifaceted approaches to open-ended research questions. BLADE consists of 12 datasets and research questions drawn from existing scientific literature, with ground truth collected from independent analyses by expert data scientists and researchers. To automatically evaluate agent responses, we developed corresponding computational methods to match different representations of analyses to this ground truth. Though language models possess considerable world knowledge, our evaluation shows that they are often limited to basic analyses. However, agents capable of interacting with the underlying data demonstrate improved, but still non-optimal, diversity in their analytical decision making. Our work enables the evaluation of agents for data-driven science and provides researchers deeper insights into agents’ analysis approaches.