Expectations vs. Realities: The Cost of MSE-Optimal Forecasting Under Conditional Uncertainty

Multi-step time series forecasting (MSF) is commonly evaluated using point-wise error metrics such as mean squared error (MSE), implicitly treating the conditional mean as a sufficient target. We show that this can be misleading under conditional uncertainty, where the conditional expectation becomes unrepresentative of typical realized values at longer horizons. We formalize this effect through a conditional uncertainty gap and prove that whenever this gap is nonzero, no deterministic predictor can simultaneously minimize MSE and match the marginal distribution of realized futures. This establishes a fundamental, model-agnostic trade-off between point accuracy and marginal realism in MSF evaluation. Using controlled stochastic dynamical systems and nine real-world forecasting benchmarks, we empirically characterize the resulting accuracy--realism frontier and quantify the practical cost of MSE-only model selection. As conditional uncertainty increases with forecast horizon, the attainable set expands into a pronounced Pareto front, separating MSE-optimal but under-dispersed predictors from methods that trade accuracy for realistic marginal variability. Across benchmarks, we find that small relaxations in MSE (≤ 5%) frequently unlock disproportionate gains in marginal realism, with median improvements of 17.3% and gains exceeding 30% in some datasets. We further show that common forecasting strategies systematically occupy different regions of this frontier: direct multi-output predictors concentrate near the accuracy-optimal extreme, while recursive strategies and sample-based inference favors marginal realism. Together, these results expose a structural failure mode of MSE-based evaluation in long-horizon forecasting and recast strategy and inference selection as navigation of an unavoidable accuracy--realism trade-off.