Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Learning to Reason Over Time: Timeline Self-Reflection for Improved Temporal Reasoning in Language Models

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 2504.05258 v2 pith:C526KBN5 submitted 2025-04-07 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Learning to Reason Over Time: Timeline Self-Reflection for Improved Temporal Reasoning in Language Models

classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL
keywords reasoningmodelstemporalincludinglanguagellmsprocessself-reflection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for generating coherent text, understanding context, and performing reasoning tasks. However, they struggle with temporal reasoning, which requires processing time-related information such as event sequencing, durations, and inter-temporal relationships. These capabilities are critical for applications including question answering, scheduling, and historical analysis. In this paper, we introduce TISER, a novel framework that enhances the temporal reasoning abilities of LLMs through a multi-stage process that combines timeline construction with iterative self-reflection. Our approach leverages test-time scaling to extend the length of reasoning traces, enabling models to capture complex temporal dependencies more effectively. This strategy not only boosts reasoning accuracy but also improves the traceability of the inference process. Experimental results demonstrate state-of-the-art performance across multiple benchmarks, including out-of-distribution test sets, and reveal that TISER enables smaller open-source models to surpass larger closed-weight models on challenging temporal reasoning tasks.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Reflection or Re-Generation? Why LLM Revision Fails Where Human Revision Succeeds

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Matched two-pass experiments show human revisers improve on objective and subjective tasks, while LLM self-revision yields near-zero information gain on objective tasks and negative information gain on subjective task...