Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Reading Between the Timelines: RAG for Answering Diachronic Questions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Time-aware retrieval—filtering documents by event intervals and ordering them chronologically—raises accuracy on analytical, cross-time questions by 13 to 27 percentage points over standard RAG, on a new 525-question financial-news…

desk verdict Sensible temporal RAG pipeline, but ADQAB is a closed loop; the 13–27 point gain needs independent benchmarks before being taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22917 v1 pith:DH2V34HK submitted 2025-07-21 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR

Kwun Hang Lau , Ruiyuan Zhang , Weijie Shi , Xiaofang Zhou , Xiaojun Cheng This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IR
keywords time-awareretrievalretrieval-augmentedgenerationdiachronicquestionstemporalreasoningquestionansweringbenchmarkfinancialnewseventintervalsLLMevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Standard retrieval-augmented generation struggles with questions that ask how something evolved over a span of time, because semantic similarity ignores whether a document falls inside the question's window. The paper claims that a pipeline it calls TA-RAG fixes this by decomposing each query into a subject and a set of time intervals, filtering the corpus to chunks whose event intervals overlap those windows, and feeding the generator a chronologically ordered context. To test this, the authors build ADQAB, a benchmark of 525 multiple-choice questions drawn from a hybrid corpus of real and synthetic financial news. On that benchmark, TA-RAG outperforms Naive RAG by 27 percentage points at five retrieved chunks and by 20.73 points at twenty, with ablations showing that each of the three temporal components contributes at small retrieval depths. If the result holds on real corpora, it gives a concrete recipe for making RAG systems temporally coherent.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of overlapping time intervals plus a query embedding that is temporally averaged. Each chunk is annotated with event intervals $T_e = [t_{e,start}, t_{e,end})$; each question is decomposed into a temporally neutral core $q_{core}$ and query intervals $\{T_q\}$. The retriever keeps only chunks with $T_q \cap T_e \neq \emptyset$, using an interval tree for fast lookup, and ranks the survivors by similarity to $e_{hypo}$, the average of embeddings of $q_{core}$ with sampled temporal anchors prepended. Finally, the generator receives the chunks sorted by estimated publication time $\hat{t}_{pub}$, so the context itself traces the evolution. This combination is what the paper claims converts semantic retrieval into temporally coherent evidence gathering.

What would settle it

Run TA-RAG on ADQAB with the synthetic articles removed and only the 23,737 real articles available, keeping the same questions; if accuracy falls back toward the Naive RAG baseline, the gain depends on the synthetic filler. A stronger test: build a benchmark over the same years from human-written news, with questions authored by people who never saw the retrieval corpus, and check whether the time filter still yields a 13-plus-point advantage; the paper reports no results on such an external benchmark, so this observation would settle the question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that analytical diachronic questions—queries requiring trend summaries, evolution analyses, or cross-period comparisons over a stated time span—are answerable by a retrieval pipeline that treats time as a first-class constraint rather than a metadata afterthought. The proposed framework first has an LLM extract each chunk's event intervals $T_e$ and each query's time intervals $\{T_q\}$, then builds a hypothetical temporal query embedding $e_{hypo}$ by averaging embeddings of the core query with sampled time anchors, filters chunks by the overlap condition $T_q \cap T_e \neq \emptyset$ using an interval tree, and finally orders the retrieved chunks by estimated publication time $\hat{t}_{pub}$ before generation. On the introduced ADQAB benchmark, the full pipeline reaches 71.73% mean accuracy with only $k=5$ chunks and 88.23% at $k=20$, beating Naive RAG, BM25, a reranked variant, and TS-Retriever. The ablation study shows that removing the hypothetical temporal embeddings, the time filter, or the chronological context structuring each costs several points at small $k$.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's corpus and its 525 questions are both built from the same historical stock-price data, so the time filter may be matching synthetic articles that were explicitly written to mirror the price trends the questions ask about; if real financial news is messier than this alignment, the reported gains may not carry over.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $k=5$, TA-RAG's 71.73% accuracy already clears every baseline, so temporally aware retrieval lets a generator work from far fewer chunks.
  • At $k=20$, the full pipeline reaches 88.23%, a 20.73-point gain over Naive RAG, while further increasing to $k=50$ yields no gain, consistent with long-context 'lost in the middle' limits.
  • A general-purpose semantic reranker helps Naive RAG but consistently hurts TA-RAG, implying that its initial temporal ranking is already better aligned with diachronic correctness.
  • Each ablated component—hypothetical temporal embeddings, time filtering, and chronological context structuring—costs roughly 4 to 6 points at $k=5$, so the gain is not attributable to any single module.
  • The time filter's benefit shrinks as $k$ grows, meaning temporal filtering is most valuable when precision, not recall, is the bottleneck.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending beyond the paper: the same two-stage design—event-interval filtering followed by chronologically ordered context—should transfer to any domain with timestamped documents, such as legal case histories, medical records, or product releases, where questions ask what changed over a window.
  • A testable extension would vary the density of the synthetic corpus: if accuracy tracks synthetic coverage of the queried months, part of the measured gain is corpus completeness rather than retrieval design.
  • The $k=50$ degradation suggests that future work on the framework should focus as much on long-context summarization as on retrieval, since the bottleneck moves from finding evidence to using it.
  • If the benchmark is made harder by removing the exact interval alignment between questions and synthetic articles, the reported 13 to 27 point advantage is likely to compress; measuring that compression would separate the filter's value from the benchmark's structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses a real limitation of standard RAG systems: when a user asks a diachronic question such as 'What was the trend of X between 2015 and 2020?', semantic retrieval ignores the temporal constraint and returns temporally scattered or anachronistic evidence. The authors propose TA-RAG, a pipeline that (1) extracts normalized event intervals from document chunks with LLM annotation, (2) decomposes a query into a temporally neutral core and one or more query intervals, (3) builds a hypothetical temporal query embedding by averaging embeddings of the core query prefixed with sampled dates and applies a temporal overlap filter over an interval tree, and (4) chronologically orders the retrieved chunks for generation. They also introduce ADQAB, a financial MCQA benchmark built from 27,037 documents (23,737 real FNSPID articles plus 3,300 synthetic monthly articles generated from stock-price data) and 525 questions across three temporal query types. Main experiments report accuracy over five runs for k=5, 10, 20, and 50, with TA-RAG exceeding Naive RAG by roughly 13–27 absolute points, and ablations attribute the gain to the hypothetical embedding, temporal filtering, and context structuring.

Significance. If the ADQAB results are accepted as measuring real diachronic retrieval skill, the paper is a useful contribution: the modular design is principled, each component is ablated with standard deviations, no retrieval parameter is trained on the test labels, and the dataset and code are released. The benchmark itself, with its three temporal query types and human-verified subset, could be a reusable resource. However, the significance is currently conditional: the evaluation set and the synthetic corpus are generated from the same historical stock-price series, and the paper provides no experiment on an independent benchmark or on a real-news-only corpus. The reported 13–27 point gains therefore conflate the proposed temporal-retrieval mechanism with the shared data-generating process. This is a load-bearing external-validity threat, not an internal inconsistency, and it is fixable with additional experiments.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1–5.2, Table 5] The evaluation has a closed-loop structure. In §5.1, the synthetic corpus C_synth is generated by LLaMA-3.3-70B from monthly stock-price data, producing one article per stock-month (3,300 articles total). In §5.2, InternVL3-78B reads the same historical price charts to write and verify the 525 MCQA items. For a question whose window is a stock-month or a bounded range of stock-months, the correct trend is, by construction, exactly the price signal that conditioned a synthetic article for that window. TA-RAG's temporal filter (§4.3) keeps chunks whose LLM-extracted event intervals overlap the query interval; for synthetic articles generated from a single month, that extracted interval is essentially the conditioning month. The filter therefore acts almost as an answer lookup, and the 13–27 point gain over Naive RAG in Table 5 plausibly measures this closed-loop property rather than a general ability to retrieve temporally coherent evidence. I do not claim the method is fitted to the answers—e_hypo is only an averaged embedding—but the evaluation as constructed cannot separate temporal retrieval skill from the shared-data shortcut.
  2. [§6.1–6.2] All experiments use ADQAB alone; no independent temporal QA benchmark or real-news-only corpus is tested. The related-work section cites TempQuestions, StreamingQA, and FinTMMBench, but none is used as an external control. Adding at least one of these benchmarks, or a variant of the ADQAB experiments where retrieval is restricted to C_real (the 23,737 real news articles), is necessary to establish that the reported gains are not an artifact of C_synth. Without such evidence, the central quantitative claim in Table 5 remains unvalidated outside the authors' own benchmark.
  3. [§5.2, §6.1] The quality-assurance protocol for ADQAB is partial: only a random 20% sample of VLM-validated MCQA items was manually reviewed, and of those, 94% met the correctness and clarity criteria. The final evaluation set is not fully human-verified. Given that the questions and the synthetic corpus are generated from the same price data, a 6% error rate in the reviewed subset could be concentrated in the harder temporal-comparison items, which are precisely the ones that matter for discriminating the methods. A fully verified test set, or an explicit error analysis of the rejected and accepted items, would materially strengthen the benchmark and the conclusions drawn from Table 5.
  4. [§4.3, Eq. (1)] The number of temporal anchor points n and the granularity heuristic are not reported, and no ablation varies n. Since e_hypo is the average of n embeddings of time-prefixed query variants, the retrieval quality and therefore the accuracy numbers may depend on an unreported parameter setting. Please report the value(s) of n used for each query type (year-level, month-level, before/after) and include an experiment showing that the main conclusions are stable over reasonable choices of n. This is needed for reproducibility as well as for judging whether n is a tuned free parameter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 6, §6.3] At k=50, all three ablated variants outperform the full model (88.19%, 88.65%, and 88.46% versus 88.00%). The paper attributes this to Lost-in-the-Middle, but the differences are within one standard deviation of the full model's 0.88% spread. A significance test or a confidence interval would be more appropriate than a speculative explanation.
  2. [Table 4] The column header 'Specific Generated Sub-Type' is confusing; the rows list query sub-types such as 'Specific Year Trend' and 'Time Interval (Months)', so a clearer header such as 'Question Sub-Type' would improve readability.
  3. [Table 1] In the notation table, the definition of synthesize(𝑞𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒,𝑡𝑖) contains a typographical duplication: 'combining 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 and 𝑡𝑖' should read 'combining 𝑞𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 and 𝑡𝑖'.
  4. [§6.1] The sentence 'Faiss[38] and PyRange [39] and used in the pipeline for data management' is ungrammatical, and the library name is inconsistent: the reference [39] is 'PyRanges', not 'PyRange'. Please correct both.
  5. [§6.2] The limitations paragraph at the end of §6.2 is appropriate but is placed inside the main-results discussion and does not mention the benchmark-construction issue. Consider moving the limitations to a dedicated subsection and adding a sentence about the dependence of the evaluation on the shared price-data origin of C_synth and the MCQA answers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

TA-RAG's method is not fitted to test labels, but ADQAB's synthetic corpus and MCQA answers are both generated from the same stock-price time series, so the benchmark itself has a partial closed loop; the 13–27 point gain needs confirmation on independent benchmarks.

  1. self definitional [5.1 Corpus Construction; 5.2 Evaluation Set Generation; 4.3 Temporally-Aware Retrieval Strategy]
    "For each of the 25 selected stocks, we generated one synthetic article per month ... The generation was conditioned on the historical stock price data for the specific stock and month. ... We generate questions and a set of shuffled choices given the historical stock price ... Conditioned on the visual trends and the target temporal query type ... it formulates an open-ended question and its corresponding answer. ... a temporal filter is applied ..."

    The MCQA ground truth is derived from the stock-price time series (InternVL3-78B reads the chart and writes the answer). C_synth is generated from the same stock-price time series, one synthetic article per stock-month, by LLaMA-3.3-70B. TA-RAG's retrieval first applies a temporal filter that keeps chunks whose event interval overlaps the query interval. For synthetic articles, the event interval is anchored to the conditioning month, and the questions sample intervals on the same stock-month grid. Consequently, when a question's interval falls on a stock-month, the time filter is close to an index lookup into an article that was generated from the exact price signal that defines the correct choice.

full rationale

There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, and TA-RAG's method derivation is not circular: e_hypo is an average of embeddings, the time filter is a stated interval-overlap rule, and no parameter is fitted to the MCQA labels. The circularity is at the evaluation-construct level. ADQAB's synthetic corpus is generated by prompting LLaMA-3.3-70B with monthly price data, and the MCQA answers are written by InternVL3-78B reading the same price charts. TA-RAG's temporal filter then selects chunks whose extracted event intervals overlap the query interval; because synthetic articles are one per stock-month and questions sample from that same stock-month grid, the filter approximates an answer lookup. The reported 13–27 point gain over Naive RAG is therefore partly an artifact of benchmark construction rather than an independent demonstration of temporal retrieval ability. This is a partial circularity of evaluation, not a fitted-parameter or self-citation circularity; score 5 reflects that the central method has independent content but its headline empirical evidence is not self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on the ADQAB benchmark, which the authors constructed. Its synthetic news corpus is generated by an LLM from the same historical stock prices used by a VLM to write the MCQA answers, so the benchmark's validity is a core unverified premise. The method itself uses no fitted parameters, but several design choices (anchor count, filtering thresholds, chunk size) influence retrieval and are not fully specified.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of temporal anchor points n for e_hypo = not specified (adaptive)
    Section 4.3: the paper says a set of n discrete temporal anchor points is generated with granularity one level finer than the query's primary unit, but n and the sampling details are not specified; retrieval quality depends on this choice.
  • MCQA correctness threshold = 4 out of 5 Likert score
    Section 5.2: generated MCQA pairs with a VLM confidence score below 4 are discarded; the benchmark difficulty depends on this hand-set threshold.
  • Chunk size = 2048 tokens
    Section 6.1: documents are split into non-overlapping chunks of up to 2048 tokens; interval extraction and retrieval operate on these chunks.
  • Real news date filtering criteria = explicit year mention required
    Section 5.1: articles without explicit date mentions with a year are discarded, biasing the real corpus toward explicitly dated news.
  • Granularity heuristic for temporal anchors = one level finer than primary time unit of query
    Section 4.3: e.g., decade-spanning queries sampled yearly, month-to-year queries sampled monthly; affects temporal coverage and computational cost.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each document in the corpus has an associated temporal interval or point reflecting the time its content is relevant.
    Section 3.1 problem formulation assumes documents possess temporal information; TA-RAG's filtering depends on these intervals being extractable and correct.
  • domain assumption Temporal relevance is sufficiently captured by interval overlap (T_q intersect T_e is non-empty).
    Section 4.3: the time filter keeps chunks whose event intervals overlap the query's time intervals; this operationalization ignores partial overlaps, interval semantics, and implicit temporal relations.
  • domain assumption Synthetic news generated from monthly price data is representative of real news for answering price-trend questions.
    Section 5.1: LLaMA-3.3-70B-instruct generated 3,300 synthetic articles conditioned on historical stock prices; the benchmark's answerability rests on these invented articles being valid evidence.
  • domain assumption The VLM-based verification (threshold >= 4) guarantees a single unambiguous correct answer for each MCQA.
    Section 5.2: InternVL3-78B self-scores each MCQA; the 20% human review found 94% of reviewed questions correct, meaning the remaining 6% are potentially flawed and the VLM's own assessment is trusted for 80% of the test set.
  • domain assumption LLM-based time annotation (two-stage) produces accurate event intervals across the corpus.
    Section 4.1: the two-stage LLM annotation estimates publication time and event intervals; no human evaluation of annotation accuracy is reported, and the time filter's precision depends on these intervals.
invented entities (2)
  • ADQAB benchmark independent evidence
    purpose: Evaluation suite of 525 MCQA questions over a hybrid real and synthetic financial news corpus for assessing diachronic QA.
    A new resource released publicly on GitHub; external researchers can use it, but its validity as a measure of real-world diachronic QA is not established outside the paper.
  • C_synth synthetic news corpus (3,300 articles)
    purpose: Fills temporal gaps in real news coverage so that every stock-month has a news-like article, making diachronic queries answerable.
    LLM-generated articles are invented texts conditioned on stock prices; the paper provides no human evaluation of their factual reliability or stylistic similarity to real financial news, and they encode the same price data used to create the ground-truth answers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reading Between the Timelines: RAG for Answering Diachronic Questions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DH2V34HK

@misc{pith2026250722917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reading Between the Timelines: RAG for Answering Diachronic Questions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DH2V34HK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22917}
}
read the original abstract

While Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) excels at injecting static, factual knowledge into Large Language Models (LLMs), it exhibits a critical deficit in handling longitudinal queries that require tracking entities and phenomena across time. This blind spot arises because conventional, semantically-driven retrieval methods are not equipped to gather evidence that is both topically relevant and temporally coherent for a specified duration. We address this challenge by proposing a new framework that fundamentally redesigns the RAG pipeline to infuse temporal logic. Our methodology begins by disentangling a user's query into its core subject and its temporal window. It then employs a specialized retriever that calibrates semantic matching against temporal relevance, ensuring the collection of a contiguous evidence set that spans the entire queried period. To enable rigorous evaluation of this capability, we also introduce the Analytical Diachronic Question Answering Benchmark (ADQAB), a challenging evaluation suite grounded in a hybrid corpus of real and synthetic financial news. Empirical results on ADQAB show that our approach yields substantial gains in answer accuracy, surpassing standard RAG implementations by 13% to 27%. This work provides a validated pathway toward RAG systems capable of performing the nuanced, evolutionary analysis required for complex, real-world questions. The dataset and code for this study are publicly available at https://github.com/kwunhang/TA-RAG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22917 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of the TA-RAG framework, consisting of four key modules: Time Information Extraction, Question [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Design of the Analytical Diachronic Question Answering Benchmark. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Unified Dominance Graph for Interval-Predicate Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search

    cs.DB 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Proposes Unified Dominance Graph (UDG) for interval-predicate ANNS by mapping to dominance space and building a predicate-specific graph index with patch edges for better search under filters.

  2. IA-RAG: Interval-Algebra-Driven Temporal Reasoning for Dynamic Knowledge Retrieval

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    IA-RAG is a hierarchical RAG framework that represents facts as Interval Event Units organized in a Thematic Forest under Allen's Interval Algebra, with Sub-graph Time Tightening for fuzzy intervals, and reports impro...

  3. Chronological Knowledge Retrieval: A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Approach to Construction Project Documentation

    cs.CL 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A RAG framework integrates semantic search and LLMs to deliver time-annotated answers to natural-language questions on construction project meeting minutes, demonstrated on an industry dataset with public code and dat...

  4. Freshness and the Limits of Heuristic Trend Detection in Temporal RAG

    cs.LG 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A half-life recency prior appears to improve freshness in RAG, but the paper's abstract and body conflict, and the topic-evolution failure is misattributed to the clusterer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. InProceedings of the 34th Inter- national Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems(V...

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2024. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv:2312.10997 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. arXiv:2005.11401 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Oded Ovadia, Menachem Brief, Moshik Mishaeli, and Oren Elisha. 2024. Fine-Tuning or Retrieval? Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMs. arXiv:2312.05934 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.05934

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Haiyuan Wang, Deli Zhang, Jianmin Li, Zelong Feng, and Feng Zhang. 2025. Entropy-Optimized Dynamic Text Segmentation and RAG-Enhanced LLMs for Construction Engineering Knowledge Base.Applied Sciences15, 6 (2025). doi:10. 3390/app15063134

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Rodriques, and Andrew D

    Jakub Lála, Odhran O’Donoghue, Aleksandar Shtedritski, Sam Cox, Samuel G. Rodriques, and Andrew D. White. 2023. PaperQA: Retrieval-Augmented Genera- tive Agent for Scientific Research. arXiv:2312.07559 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2312.07559

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Anoushka Gade and Jorjeta Jetcheva. 2024. It’s About Time: Incorporating Temporality in Retrieval Augmented Language Models. arXiv:2401.13222 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13222

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Feifan Wu, Lingyuan Liu, Wentao He, Ziqi Liu, Zhiqiang Zhang, Haofen Wang, and Meng Wang. 2024. Time-Sensitve Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Question Answering. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management(Boise, ID, USA)(CIKM ’24). Association Kwun Hang Lau, Ruiyuan Zhang, Weijie Shi, Xiaofang Zhou, a...

    doi:10.1145/3627673 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Zhen Jia, Abdalghani Abujabal, Rishiraj Saha Roy, Jannik Strötgen, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. TempQuestions: A Benchmark for Temporal Question Answering. InCompanion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018(Lyon, France)(WWW ’18). International World Wide Web Conferences Stee...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Wenhu Chen, Xinyi Wang, and William Yang Wang. 2021. A Dataset for An- swering Time-Sensitive Questions. arXiv:2108.06314 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2108.06314

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Zhang Siyue, Xue Yuxiang, Zhang Yiming, Wu Xiaobao, Luu Anh Tuan, and Zhao Chen. 2024. MRAG: A Modular Retrieval Framework for Time-Sensitive Question Answering. arXiv:2412.15540 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15540

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Zhen Jia, Philipp Christmann, and Gerhard Weikum. 2024. Faithful Temporal Question Answering over Heterogeneous Sources. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024(Singapore, Singapore)(WWW ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2052–2063. doi:10.1145/...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Jiexin Wang, Adam Jatowt, Masatoshi Yoshikawa, and Yi Cai. 2023. BiTimeBERT: Extending Pre-Trained Language Representations with Bi-Temporal Information. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Taipei, T...

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Jiexin Wang, Adam Jatowt, and Yi Cai. 2025. Towards Effective Time-Aware Language Representation: Exploring Enhanced Temporal Understanding in Lan- guage Models.ACM Trans. Web(March 2025). doi:10.1145/3723352 Just Accepted

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    Abdelrahman Abdallah, Bhawna Piryani, Jonas Wallat, Avishek Anand, and Adam Jatowt. 2025. TempRetriever: Fusion-based Temporal Dense Passage Retrieval for Time-Sensitive Questions. arXiv:2502.21024 [cs.IR] https://arxiv. org/abs/2502.21024

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Yifan Wei, Yisong Su, Huanhuan Ma, Xiaoyan Yu, Fangyu Lei, Yuanzhe Zhang, Jun Zhao, and Kang Liu. 2023. MenatQA: A New Dataset for Testing the Temporal Comprehension and Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ...

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Zhihan Zhang, Yixin Cao, Chenchen Ye, Yunshan Ma, Lizi Liao, and Tat- Seng Chua. 2024. Analyzing Temporal Complex Events with Large Lan- guage Models? A Benchmark towards Temporal, Long Context Understanding. arXiv:2406.02472 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02472

    2024 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Zhaochen Su, Juntao Li, Jun Zhang, Tong Zhu, Xiaoye Qu, Pan Zhou, Yan Bowen, Yu Cheng, and Min Zhang. 2024. Living in the Moment: Can Large Language Models Grasp Co-Temporal Reasoning?. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (...

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    Chenhan Yuan, Qianqian Xie, Jimin Huang, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2024. Back to the Future: Towards Explainable Temporal Reasoning with Large Language Mod- els. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024(Singapore, Singapore)(WWW ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New Y...

    2024

  12. [21]

    Cole, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Daniel Gillick, Jacob Eisenstein, and William W

    Bhuwan Dhingra, Jeremy R. Cole, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Daniel Gillick, Jacob Eisenstein, and William W. Cohen. 2022. Time-Aware Language Models as Temporal Knowledge Bases.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics10 (2022), 257–273. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00459

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    Ziyang Chen, Jinzhi Liao, and Xiang Zhao. 2023. Multi-granularity Temporal Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki O...

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    Xinying Qian, Ying Zhang, Yu Zhao, Baohang Zhou, Xuhui Sui, Li Zhang, and Kehui Song. 2024. TimeR 4 : Time-aware Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models for Temporal Knowledge Graph Question Answering. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lang...

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    Yonghao Liu, Di Liang, Mengyu Li, Fausto Giunchiglia, Ximing Li, Sirui Wang, Wei Wu, Lan Huang, Xiaoyue Feng, and Renchu Guan. 2023. Local and global: temporal question answering via information fusion. InProceedings of the Thirty- Second International Joint Conference on Arti...

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    Ziyang Chen, Dongfang Li, Xiang Zhao, Baotian Hu, and Min Zhang. 2024. Temporal Knowledge Question Answering via Abstract Reasoning Induction. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Lun-Wei Ku, Andre M...

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    Bhawna Piryani, Jamshid Mozafari, and Adam Jatowt. 2024. ChroniclingAmeri- caQA: A Large-scale Question Answering Dataset based on Historical American Newspaper Pages. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retri...

    2024

  18. [27]

    Adam Liška, Tomáš Kočiský, Elena Gribovskaya, Tayfun Terzi, Eren Sezener, Devang Agrawal, Cyprien de Masson d’Autume, Tim Scholtes, Manzil Zaheer, Susannah Young, Ellen Gilsenan-McMahon, Sophia Austin, Phil Blunsom, and Angeliki Lazaridou. 2022. StreamingQA: A Benchmark for Ad...

    2022 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Zhen Jia, Philipp Christmann, and Gerhard Weikum. 2024. TIQ: A Benchmark for Temporal Question Answering with Implicit Time Constraints. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024(Singapore, Singapore)(WWW ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2024

  20. [29]

    Fengbin Zhu, Junfeng Li, Liangming Pan, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Chao Wang, Huanbo Luan, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2025. FinTMMBench: Benchmark- ing Temporal-Aware Multi-Modal RAG in Finance. arXiv:2503.05185 [q-fin.CP] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05185

    2025 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Zihan Dong, Xinyu Fan, and Zhiyuan Peng. 2024. FNSPID: A Comprehensive Financial News Dataset in Time Series. arXiv:2402.06698 [q-fin.ST]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Matthew Honnibal and Ines Montani. 2017. spaCy 2: Natural language under- standing with Bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremen- tal parsing. (2017). To appear

    2017

  23. [32]

    AI@Meta. 2024. Llama 3 Model Card. (2024). https://github.com/meta-llama/ llama3/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md

    2024

  24. [33]

    Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, et al. 2024. Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Compu...

    2024

  25. [34]

    Yuhui Zhang, Yuchang Su, Yiming Liu, Xiaohan Wang, James Burgess, Elaine Sui, Chenyu Wang, Josiah Aklilu, Alejandro Lozano, Anjiang Wei, Ludwig Schmidt, and Serena Yeung-Levy. 2025. Automated Generation of Chal- lenging Multiple-Choice Questions for Vision Language Model Evalu...

    2025 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The Probabilistic Relevance Frame- work: BM25 and Beyond.Found. Trends Inf. Retr.3, 4 (April 2009), 333–389. doi:10.1561/1500000019

    2009 doi

  27. [36]

    Morris, Brandon Duderstadt, and Andriy Mulyar

    Zach Nussbaum, John X. Morris, Brandon Duderstadt, and Andriy Mulyar

  28. [37]

    Jianlv Chen, Shitao Xiao, Peitian Zhang, Kun Luo, Defu Lian, and Zheng Liu. 2024. BGE M3-Embedding: Multi-Lingual, Multi-Functionality, Multi-Granularity Text Embeddings Through Self-Knowledge Distillation. arXiv:2402.03216 [cs.CL]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs.IEEE Transactions on Big Data7, 3 (2019), 535–547

    2019

  30. [39]

    Endre Bakken Stovner and Pål Sætrom. 2019. PyRanges: efficient comparison of genomic intervals in Python.Bioinformatics36, 3 (08 2019), 918–919. doi:10.1093/ bioinformatics/btz615 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article- pdf/36/3/918/48982398/bioinformatics_36_3_918.pdf

    2019

  31. [40]

    Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang

    Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. 2023. Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts. arXiv:2307.03172 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03172

    2023 arXiv

  32. [2024]

    arXiv:2402.01613 [cs.CL]

    Nomic Embed: Training a Reproducible Long Context Text Embedder. arXiv:2402.01613 [cs.CL]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.