TL;QR: Querying Temporal Discursive Patterns in Textual Corpora

By leveraging large-scale pretraining, LLMs can interpret diverse temporal expressions and question formulations without task-specific training. However, existing prompt-based neuro-symbolic systems continue to rely on LLMs for both semantic interpretation and exact temporal inference. Consequently, discrete decisions regarding intervals, time anchors, and ordered states remain vulnerable to probabilistic errors and difficult to verify. We present STAIR, a Semantic-Temporal Automaton for Interpretable Reasoning. STAIR separates semantic interpretation from precise temporal inference: an answer-free LLM adapter maps complex question formulations to normalized temporal intents, while a deterministic temporal automaton with finite control and guarded transitions executes the corresponding policies over canonicalized evidence. Following a rule-first design, STAIR resolves standard questions without invoking an LLM and applies semantic adaptation only when the rule path fails to produce an executable intent. This approach reduces free-form reasoning, making temporal decisions verifiable and interpretable. Specifically, guarded execution supports precise point-time containment and before/after selection, while semantic adaptation handles non-exact intervals and time-anchored queries. Across the TimeQA-Easy, TimeQA-Hard, TempReason-L2, and TempReason-L3 datasets, STAIR consistently outperforms strong baselines in the TQA task using matched model settings, achieving average F1 improvements of 16.57% and 3.10% when utilizing the Qwen2.5-7B and GPT-4o-mini models, respectively. Furthermore, ablations and diagnostic analyses demonstrate that STAIR excels at handling both boundary-sensitive and order-sensitive queries, while its guarded execution and semantic adaptation ensure precise point-time reasoning and inexact intervals, respectively.

Evolving documents, such as laws, tax codes, and software documentation, are amended, replaced, and sometimes reverted over time, so a question has different correct answers at different dates. In contrast to encyclopedic knowledge, where an old fact is simply overwritten, an amendment is itself an official text that states what it replaces and when it takes effect, and the earlier version stays correct for its validity period. The central challenge is therefore version resolution, that is, identifying the version in force on the queried date. Existing temporal QA datasets treat time only as an annotation, so version resolution stays untested. We present TIDE, an expert-verified benchmark of 3,050 QA pairs over 644 official customs instruments issued between 1969 and 2025 by the Government of Bangladesh, covering eight task types over deeply code-mixed documents that are heterogeneous in layout and dated in two calendars. In addition, we evaluate nine recent LLMs under a single protocol across parametric, gold-context, and retrieval access, scored by a three-judge LLM council with a hard date gate separating correct meaning from correct time. The best macro-averaged accuracy is only 68.5%. Resolving a version from an implicit date reaches 59.7%, and detecting that the supplied version does not govern the query reaches only 26.7%. Models are more likely to find correct versions than to reject incorrect ones, and they tend to follow a confident parametric answer over the supplied authoritative text. All code and data are available at https://github.com/icsetepa44/TIDE

Understanding a narrative means knowing how every event relates in time to every other, yet large language models (LLMs) are mostly tested on isolated event pairs or coarse labels. We ask five LLMs to reconstruct the complete network of Allen's 13 interval relations for 360 English narratives whose events are placed relative to one another rather than by dates, and evaluate the outputs under a pre-registered protocol for agreement with our gold annotations, converse consistency and logical satisfiability. End to end, the best model clearly beats trivial baselines on macro-F1, our primary metric, yet under our pre-registered parser no model matches the accuracy of always answering "before", which the skewed labels inflate. Most of that accuracy gap is a parsing artifact: formatting errors in large matrices cost whole rows, and a post hoc parser that recovers the determined cells of malformed rows raises coverage from 0.60 to 0.84 and closes the gap to the baseline for the best model. On the cells they do answer, models recover precedence and containment but rarely overlap, and they fail most on flashbacks, where both the narration and the event list present the later event first. Logical consistency varies widely yet says little about agreement with gold: enforcing it raises accuracy mainly by filling empty cells, and is beaten there by the trivial control of guessing the majority label. Reliable structured output and robust handling of relative time are prerequisites for temporal reasoning over whole narratives.