Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Unveiling Divergent Inductive Biases of LLMs on Temporal Data

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.01453 v1 pith:2JGO4NCG submitted 2024-04-01 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords temporalgpt-3gpt-4dataeventsformatllmsexplicit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Unraveling the intricate details of events in natural language necessitates a subtle understanding of temporal dynamics. Despite the adeptness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in discerning patterns and relationships from data, their inherent comprehension of temporal dynamics remains a formidable challenge. This research meticulously explores these intrinsic challenges within LLMs, with a specific emphasis on evaluating the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models in the analysis of temporal data. Employing two distinct prompt types, namely Question Answering (QA) format and Textual Entailment (TE) format, our analysis probes into both implicit and explicit events. The findings underscore noteworthy trends, revealing disparities in the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Notably, biases toward specific temporal relationships come to light, with GPT-3.5 demonstrating a preference for "AFTER'' in the QA format for both implicit and explicit events, while GPT-4 leans towards "BEFORE''. Furthermore, a consistent pattern surfaces wherein GPT-3.5 tends towards "TRUE'', and GPT-4 exhibits a preference for "FALSE'' in the TE format for both implicit and explicit events. This persistent discrepancy between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in handling temporal data highlights the intricate nature of inductive bias in LLMs, suggesting that the evolution of these models may not merely mitigate bias but may introduce new layers of complexity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. DateLogicQA: Benchmarking Temporal Biases in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    DateLogicQA evaluates 12 LLMs on 190 date-reasoning questions and claims separate representation-level and logical-level temporal biases, but the Semantic Integrity Metric is undefined.

Pith tools