Models with near-identical predictive performance can yield substantially different predictions, a phenomenon known as predictive multiplicity. Prior work has mostly studied this at the level of individual scalar outputs.

In time-series forecasting, however, predictions across horizons jointly define a trajectory, and horizon-wise comparisons can hide important differences in predictive behavior. To address this problem, we introduce temporal predictive multiplicity, a framework that characterizes disagreement over complete forecast trajectories among models with near-identical predictive performance.

We show that constraining predictive performance alone can still admit a broad range of different trajectories. We further show that constraining multiplicity at individual horizons partially reduces, but does not eliminate, trajectory-level multiplicity.

Experiments with 19 neural forecasting architectures on 11 datasets confirm that near-optimal models can exhibit substantial variability in the forecast trajectories they produce, and trajectory-level disagreement is largely unrelated to horizon-wise disagreement. Our framework, therefore, exposes a gap in existing multiplicity studies: models with indistinguishable predictive performance imply fundamentally different temporal trajectories, with consequential downstream effects.