Your Foundation Model Doesn't Know What 50 Hz Means — First Stress-Test of TSFMs Under Sampling Frequency Shifts

Four major time-series foundation models tested for robustness to sampling rate changes. Results: performance degrades even when signal bandwidth is preserved. The models are memorizing frequency, not learning physics.

Imagine you record a friend singing a song at 44.1 kHz, then downsample to 22 kHz. The melody is still there — you haven't lost any audible information because human hearing tops out well below 22 kHz. Now imagine your audio transcription model falls apart anyway, not because the signal degraded but because it memorized what 44.1 kHz 'looks like' in raw samples. That's the core problem this paper exposes for time-series foundation models applied to sensor data. The committed claim: this is the first systematic evaluation of whether TSFMs (MOMENT, Chronos-2, Moirai-MoE, TimesFM) are invariant to sampling frequency changes in sensor data, as opposed to merely being accurate at the frequency they were trained on. The authors introduce three novel metrics — FSI (embedding shift), FDI (forecasting degradation), and CDI (downstream classification degradation) — to separate the model's sensitivity to frequency value from the actual information loss caused by undersampling. This is a diagnostic paper, not a methods paper: it doesn't propose a fix, but it precisely measures a failure mode nobody had formally quantified. The ladder position is genuinely first-of-kind for this specific question. Prior TSFM evaluations (Montsquare benchmark, Forecastpfn, etc.) treat sampling frequency as a fixed property of each dataset, never varying it within an evaluation. Classical signal processing has Nyquist theory for when information is lost, but nobody had asked: do TSFMs degrade in line with Nyquist limits, or do they degrade earlier and for non-physical reasons? The answer, across all four models, is the latter — models lose performance even when the downsampled signal retains all task-relevant bandwidth. Architecturally, the paper treats the four TSFMs as black boxes from distinct families: MOMENT (masked autoencoder, patch-based), Chronos-2 (tokenized quantile forecaster, T5-based), Moirai-MoE (mixture-of-experts, universal forecaster), and TimesFM (decoder-only, patched). The stress-test pipeline resamples input signals at controlled rates, computes Nyquist margins, and measures output divergence. The compute property being exploited is simple: resampling is cheap, so you can generate a dense grid of (signal, frequency) pairs and measure degradation curves rather than single-point benchmarks. The integrity profile is solid for a diagnostic study but has clear limits. The authors evaluate on real sensor datasets (accelerometer, physiological signals) rather than synthetic data, which is good. But the evaluation is entirely within-team: no independent replication, no pre-registration, and the three proposed metrics (FSI, FDI, CDI) are novel and unvalidated by external use. The choice of only four TSFMs is defensible (they're the most prominent) but the absence of a classical signal-processing baseline (e.g., a simple Butterworth-filtered feature extractor) as a control condition is a missed opportunity. The milestone question is where this paper is most honest and most limited. It characterizes the problem but doesn't propose a threshold for 'acceptable SF-invariance' or a concrete target number a future model should hit. The implicit next milestone is a TSFM whose degradation curve tracks the Nyquist information-loss curve within some epsilon — but the paper doesn't specify that epsilon or estimate how far current models are from it in absolute terms. The obvious successor experiment: fine-tune or retrain one of these TSFMs with frequency-augmented data (random resampling during training) and measure whether the invariance gap closes. The authors almost certainly know this is the next step. My read: they're saving it for a follow-up paper, because the diagnostic framing is cleaner as a standalone contribution and the fix is a separate research question with its own complexity.