REVIEW 2 cited by
Are LLMs Prescient? A Continuous Evaluation using Daily News as the Oracle
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
Are LLMs Prescient? A Continuous Evaluation using Daily News as the Oracle
read the original abstract
Many existing evaluation benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs) quickly become outdated due to the emergence of new models and training data. These benchmarks also fall short in assessing how LLM performance changes over time, as they consist of a static set of questions without a temporal dimension. To address these limitations, we propose using future event prediction as a continuous evaluation method to assess LLMs' temporal generalization and forecasting abilities. Our benchmark, Daily Oracle, automatically generates question-answer (QA) pairs from daily news, challenging LLMs to predict "future" event outcomes. Our findings reveal that as pre-training data becomes outdated, LLM performance degrades over time. While Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) has the potential to enhance prediction accuracy, the performance degradation pattern persists, highlighting the need for continuous model updates. Code and data are available at https://agenticlearning.ai/daily-oracle.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Agentic Time Machine as an Infrastructure for Future-Event Forecasting
Agentic Time Machine reconstructs historical web states for offline evaluation of forecasting agents, with a multi-agent framework achieving top ranks on FutureX live and past benchmarks.
-
WorldReasoner: Evaluating Whether Language Model Agents Forecast Events with Valid Reasoning
WorldReasoner supplies 345 resolved forecasting tasks built from 14,141 articles to score LM agents on outcome quality, evidence quality, and reasoning quality against time-bounded evidence and hindsight graphs.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.