跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-08 14:31 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-07 15:21 — 2026-11-08 15:21(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-08 14:31最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-08 14:29(北京时间)
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.331ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Beyond Timestamps: Bridging Forward and Backward Reasoning in Temporal Numerical and Relational Understanding

Xinying Qian, Ying Zhang Nankai University, Xuhui Sui, Yu Zhao Nankai University, Baohang Zhou Tiangong University, Jeff Z. Pan University of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh

原文摘要

Temporal reasoning remains a critical challenge for large language models (LLMs), particularly when it requires encompassing relational dependencies and numerical constraints. Yet, existing benchmarks largely overlook the joint consideration of these two dimensions and primarily rely on single-task evaluation paradigms, making it difficult to assess whether correct answers reflect grounded reasoning or arise from superficial statistical recall. To address these gaps, we introduce TNR, a benchmark designed to evaluate both Temporal Numerical and Relational reasoning. We propose a bi-directional evaluation framework consisting of forward generation via Question Answering (QA) and backward verification via Fact Verification (FV). By measuring the alignment between QA and FV, we introduce a Consistency Rate to quantify the robustness of reasoning across these two directions. Experiments on a range of LLMs reveal notable discrepancies between QA and FV performance, particularly in numerical and interval-based tasks. Moreover, our bi-directional error analysis demonstrates that these inconsistencies often stem from heuristic shortcuts and statistical co-occurrences rather than grounded logical deduction, flaws that are frequently masked in standard single-task evaluations.

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表