Who Warmed the Archives? LLMs Overestimate Historical Warmth
Authors: Claudiu Creanga, Liviu P. Dinu
Organizations: Interdisciplinary School of Doctoral Studies, University of Bucharest, Romania · HLT Research Center, University of Bucharest, Romania · Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Bucharest, Romania
Historical archives are an under-used source for extending the instrumental climate record backward in time, and LLMs offer a way to extract the indices climatologists derive by hand. Beyond measuring how well systems extract this signal, we check whether their errors are safe to use for cross-century comparison, since a good correlation score does not rule out systematic, era-linked bias. Comparing lexical baselines, fine-tuned historical transformers, and LLM prompting on the Pfister temperature index across five centuries of German text, lexical methods beat every fine-tuned transformer we test, including one pretrained from scratch on historical German (r=-0.016). All six LLMs we test (Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5-mini, DeepSeek v4 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Qwen3.7-Plus, Kimi-K2.6-Fast) show a warm bias that grows with calendar year, with the same sign in every model (slopes +0.13 to +0.34/century, p<0.01). The effect is modest in size (r-squared approx equal to 0.01 to 0.05) but consistent across six independently developed models. The best-correlated of the six, Gemini 2.5 Flash, matches the best lexical correlation (r=0.32) at double the error. An ablation stripping explicit dates and calendar-era markers from the quotes leaves this trend essentially unchanged, favoring an anachronistic present-day prior over the model correctly inferring the quote's era. Correlation alone is thus insufficient for vetting an LLM as a historical-climate-index oracle.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Mean zero-shot prediction bias by century, all six audited models, identical 702-row sample: a cold bias before 1800 flips to a warm bias after, in every model.
Split
Records
Years
Train
4,022
1500–1849
Validation
558
1850–1899
Test (TI)
502
1900–2022
Test (HHI)
666
1900–2026
Table 1: Main corpus splits, temperature index (TI) and humidity index (HHI). Train/validation are shared. Only the test period and size differ.
Portion
n
Years
Pre-1900 (stratified, fresh)
300
1500–1899
1900–2000 (reused test set)
402
1900–2000
Total
702
1500–2000
Table 2: Century-stratified bias-audit sample, used identically across all six audited LLMs.
Model
Val MAE ↓
Val RMSE ↓
Val r ↑
Test MAE ↓
Test RMSE ↓
Test r ↑
TF-IDF (word) + Ridge
0.8329
1.0264
0.3368
0.9012
1.1423
0.3225
TF-IDF (char) + XGBoost
0.8225
1.0179
0.3443
0.8687
1.1245
0.2844
TF-IDF (char) + XGBoost + year
0.8305
1.0260
0.3246
0.8762
1.1239
0.2905
TF-IDF (word) + Ridge [+800]
0.8282
1.0219
0.3384
0.8905
1.1342
0.3091
TF-IDF (char) + XGBoost [+800]
0.8325
1.0354
0.3096
0.8625
1.1145
0.2707
TF-IDF (char) + XGBoost + year [+800]
0.8337
1.0348
0.3134
0.8596
1.1117
0.2771
Table 3: Temperature-index regression: lexical baselines (original dataset and the [+800]-expanded training variant, char n-gram = 3–5) vs. fine-tuned historical transformers (original dataset only).
Figure 2: Test-set Pearson r across all main-corpus models.
Condition
n
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
r ↑
Zero-shot
402
1.7192
2.0535
0.3197
3-shot random
502
1.4975
1.8407
0.3537
5-shot random
502
1.4574
1.7897
0.3745
3-shot similarity
502
1.4404
1.7619
0.4140
Table 4: Gemini 2.5 Flash, zero-shot vs. few-shot, on the temperature-index test set.
Century
n
Gemini
GPT-5
DeepSeek
Claude
Qwen
Kimi
1500–1599
60
− 0.328
− 0.525
− 0.483
− 0.683
− 0.300
− 0.550
1600–1699
60
− 0.278
− 0.783
− 0.767
− 0.700
− 0.308
− 0.475
1700–1799
60
− 0.273
− 0.333
− 0.383
− 0.483
− 0.017
− 0.108
1800–1849
60
+0.462
+0.300
+0.350
− 0.017
+0.375
+0.383
1850–1899
60
+0.600
+0.500
+0.258
− 0.008
+0.333
+0.200
1900–1949
253
+1.011
+0.591
+0.591
+0.202
+0.638
+0.664
Table 5: Mean zero-shot bias (predicted − true index) by century, all six audited models, identical 702-row sample. “GPT-5” = GPT-5-mini; “Qwen” = Qwen3.7-Plus; “Kimi” = Kimi-K2.6-Fast.
Model
Slope/century
r
p
Gemini 2.5 Flash
+0.344
0.212
< 0.0001
GPT-5-mini
+0.272
0.199
< 0.0001
DeepSeek v4 Flash
+0.250
0.177
< 0.0001
Claude Sonnet 4.6
+0.129
0.105
0.0054
Qwen3.7-Plus
+0.201
0.158
< 0.0001
Kimi-K2.6-Fast
+0.257
0.199
< 0.0001
Table 6: Linear regression of zero-shot bias against calendar year, n=702 for all six models.
Figure 3: Bias-vs-year trend, all six audited models, n=702 each (see Figure 1 for the corresponding per-century breakdown).
Model
Slope (orig.)
Slope (redacted)
p (red.)
Gemini 2.5 Flash
+0.344
+0.354
< 0.0001
GPT-5-mini
+0.272
+0.269
< 0.0001
DeepSeek v4 Flash
+0.250
+0.303
< 0.0001
Claude Sonnet 4.6
+0.129
+0.124
0.0078
Table 7: Bias-vs-year regression slope (points/century), original vs. era-redacted text, n=702 in both conditions.
We introduce TypewriterLM, a 7.24B History language model (LM) trained exclusively on English text predating 1913. Developing History LMs requires addressing challenges in data quality and availability, preventing temporal leakage, designing temporally consistent post-training pipelines, and constructing reliable evaluations. To address these issues, we construct TypewriterCorpus, a 54B-token historical corpus collected from diverse archival and linguistically annotated sources with extensive data cleaning and leakage mitigation procedures. Furthermore, we introduce lexically grounded instructing tuning, a post-training framework that constraints responses to remain directly grounded in historical source documents. Using this framework we construct two historical instruction tuning datasets: History-LIMA and History-SelfInstruct. To evaluate capability and temporal consistency, we introduce History-Event, a benchmark suite for evaluating competence, temporal grounding and data leakage. We release TypewriterLM and all associated resources to support future research on historical language models.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly critical to digital library workflows, yet their ability to process historical language remains poorly understood. Historical difficulty is typically treated as a monolithic barrier, conflating orthographic variation, linguistic distance, and pretraining exposure. In this paper, we propose a diagnostic framework that decomposes this difficulty into four distinct dimensions: tokenization cost, predictive uncertainty (surprisal), semantic robustness, and context sensitivity. We evaluate this framework on three datasets spanning three centuries: (1) a newly curated corpus of 17th-century Italian texts (1610-1689) digitized from original page images; (2) canonical 19th-century Italian "I Promessi Sposi" serving as a high-exposure control; and (3) 18th-century Russian civil print books as a contrastive orthographic stress test. Our results reveal a distinct dissociation between encoding cost and comprehension. While Russian and early modern Italian incur comparable tokenization penalties (25-30% inflation), their predictive difficulty diverges sharply. 17th-century Italian is on average 2.4 times more surprising than its modern equivalent - with academic prose reaching 3.2 times - whereas Russian shows only a modest increase. But predictive uncertainty does not imply representational degradation: embedding similarity remains robust (> 0.85) across all datasets, confirming that models can represent historical meaning even when generation is unstable. Finally, we demonstrate that a minimal temporal context prompt reduces historical surprisal by approximately 60%, offering a simple, model-agnostic mitigation. These findings suggest that while historical text imposes a consistent encoding tax, digital libraries can safely deploy LLMs for semantic retrieval tasks, provided that generative applications are carefully adapted.
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have increasingly assisted in historical tasks such as text processing, their capacity for professional-level historical reasoning remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks primarily assess basic knowledge breadth or lexical understanding, failing to capture the higher-order skills, such as evidentiary reasoning,that are central to historical research. To fill this gap, we introduce ProHist-Bench, a novel benchmark anchored in the Chinese Imperial Examination (Keju) system, a comprehensive microcosm of East Asian political, social, and intellectual history spanning over 1,300 years. Developed through deep interdisciplinary collaboration, ProHist-Bench features 400 challenging, expert-curated questions across eight dynasties, accompanied by 10,891 fine-grained evaluation rubrics. Through a rigorous evaluation of 18 LLMs, we reveal a significant proficiency gap: even state-of-the-art LLMs struggle with complex historical research questions. We hope ProHist-Bench will facilitate the development of domain-specific reasoning LLMs, advance computational historical research, and further uncover the untapped potential of LLMs. We release ProHist-Bench at https://github.com/inclusionAI/ABench/tree/main/ProHist-Bench.
Lirong Gao, Zeqing Wang, Yuyan Cai +6
State Key Laboratory of Blockchain and Data Security, Zhejiang University · Ant Group · Zhejiang University