Do Time-Series Foundation Models Pay Off for Industrial Monitoring? A Cost-Aware Empirical Study

Abstract

Industrial monitoring models must detect operationally relevant deviations while satisfying target-specific data, calibration, and resource constraints. Time-series foundation models (TSFMs) promise reusable representations and zero-shot forecasts, yet evidence for their deployment value remains mixed when task definitions are heterogeneous and lightweight baselines are competitive. This work presents a protocol-aware empirical assessment across three settings: a C-MAPSS degradation-risk proxy, normal-only training for anomalous-sound detection on MIMII, and BDG2 forecasting-residual diagnostics with synthetic target perturbations. We assess classical one-class methods, compact neural autoencoders, residual forecasters, MOMENT-small, Chronos-T5, and TimesFM 2.5 in terms of anomaly-ranking performance, risk-horizon sensitivity, residual forecasting and perturbation sensitivity, and local implementation cost. Across 100 C-MAPSS engines evaluated out of fold, TCN-AE reaches fold-weighted AUROC/AUPRC 0.9570/0.8960, compared with 0.7310/0.3080 for MOMENT reconstruction; paired engine-cluster bootstrap confidence intervals exclude zero for both differences. Across five matched MIMII pump evaluations, OCSVM also exceeds MOMENT reconstruction in AUROC and AUPRC. On a fixed 12-meter BDG2 panel, TimesFM 2.5 has the lowest aligned forecast error and the highest synthetic AUROC point estimate, although synthetic AUPRC is similar across TSFM and fitted residual models. Same-device measurements show that MOMENT incurs higher latency, peak allocated VRAM, and serialized state-dictionary size than TCN-AE. Under the evaluated frozen and zero-shot settings, TSFMs are task-dependent deployment options rather than default replacements for fitted lightweight models.