@inproceedings{qiu-etal-2024-large,
title = "Are Large Language Model Temporally Grounded?",
author = "Qiu, Yifu and
Zhao, Zheng and
Ziser, Yftah and
Korhonen, Anna and
Ponti, Edoardo and
Cohen, Shay",
editor = "Duh, Kevin and
Gomez, Helena and
Bethard, Steven",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
month = jun,
year = "2024",
address = "Mexico City, Mexico",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.391",
pages = "7057--7076",
abstract = "Are Large Language Models (LLMs) temporally grounded? Since LLMs cannot perceive and interact with the environment, it is impossible to answer this question directly. Instead, we provide LLMs with textual narratives and probe them with respect to their common-sense knowledge of the structure and duration of events, their ability to order events along a timeline, and self-consistency within their temporal model (e.g., temporal relations such as after and before are mutually exclusive for any pair of events). We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs (such as LLaMA 2 and GPT-4) on three tasks reflecting these abilities. Generally, we find that LLMs lag significantly behind both human performance as well as small-scale, specialised LMs. In-context learning, instruction tuning, and chain-of-thought prompting reduce this gap only to a limited degree. Crucially, LLMs struggle the most with self-consistency, displaying incoherent behaviour in at least 27.23{\%} of their predictions. Contrary to expectations, we also find that scaling the model size does not guarantee positive gains in performance. To explain these results, we study the sources from which LLMs may gather temporal information: we find that sentence ordering in unlabelled texts, available during pre-training, is only weakly correlated with event ordering. Moreover, public instruction tuning mixtures contain few temporal tasks. Hence, we conclude that current LLMs lack a consistent temporal model of textual narratives.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="qiu-etal-2024-large">
<titleInfo>
<title>Are Large Language Model Temporally Grounded?</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yifu</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Qiu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Zheng</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Zhao</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yftah</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ziser</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Anna</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Korhonen</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Edoardo</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ponti</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Shay</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Cohen</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2024-06</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kevin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Duh</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Helena</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gomez</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Steven</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bethard</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Mexico City, Mexico</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Are Large Language Models (LLMs) temporally grounded? Since LLMs cannot perceive and interact with the environment, it is impossible to answer this question directly. Instead, we provide LLMs with textual narratives and probe them with respect to their common-sense knowledge of the structure and duration of events, their ability to order events along a timeline, and self-consistency within their temporal model (e.g., temporal relations such as after and before are mutually exclusive for any pair of events). We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs (such as LLaMA 2 and GPT-4) on three tasks reflecting these abilities. Generally, we find that LLMs lag significantly behind both human performance as well as small-scale, specialised LMs. In-context learning, instruction tuning, and chain-of-thought prompting reduce this gap only to a limited degree. Crucially, LLMs struggle the most with self-consistency, displaying incoherent behaviour in at least 27.23% of their predictions. Contrary to expectations, we also find that scaling the model size does not guarantee positive gains in performance. To explain these results, we study the sources from which LLMs may gather temporal information: we find that sentence ordering in unlabelled texts, available during pre-training, is only weakly correlated with event ordering. Moreover, public instruction tuning mixtures contain few temporal tasks. Hence, we conclude that current LLMs lack a consistent temporal model of textual narratives.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">qiu-etal-2024-large</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.391</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2024-06</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>7057</start>
<end>7076</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Are Large Language Model Temporally Grounded?
%A Qiu, Yifu
%A Zhao, Zheng
%A Ziser, Yftah
%A Korhonen, Anna
%A Ponti, Edoardo
%A Cohen, Shay
%Y Duh, Kevin
%Y Gomez, Helena
%Y Bethard, Steven
%S Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)
%D 2024
%8 June
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Mexico City, Mexico
%F qiu-etal-2024-large
%X Are Large Language Models (LLMs) temporally grounded? Since LLMs cannot perceive and interact with the environment, it is impossible to answer this question directly. Instead, we provide LLMs with textual narratives and probe them with respect to their common-sense knowledge of the structure and duration of events, their ability to order events along a timeline, and self-consistency within their temporal model (e.g., temporal relations such as after and before are mutually exclusive for any pair of events). We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs (such as LLaMA 2 and GPT-4) on three tasks reflecting these abilities. Generally, we find that LLMs lag significantly behind both human performance as well as small-scale, specialised LMs. In-context learning, instruction tuning, and chain-of-thought prompting reduce this gap only to a limited degree. Crucially, LLMs struggle the most with self-consistency, displaying incoherent behaviour in at least 27.23% of their predictions. Contrary to expectations, we also find that scaling the model size does not guarantee positive gains in performance. To explain these results, we study the sources from which LLMs may gather temporal information: we find that sentence ordering in unlabelled texts, available during pre-training, is only weakly correlated with event ordering. Moreover, public instruction tuning mixtures contain few temporal tasks. Hence, we conclude that current LLMs lack a consistent temporal model of textual narratives.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.391
%P 7057-7076
Markdown (Informal)
[Are Large Language Model Temporally Grounded?](https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.391) (Qiu et al., NAACL 2024)
ACL
- Yifu Qiu, Zheng Zhao, Yftah Ziser, Anna Korhonen, Edoardo Ponti, and Shay Cohen. 2024. Are Large Language Model Temporally Grounded?. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7057–7076, Mexico City, Mexico. Association for Computational Linguistics.