Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 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

arxiv 2411.08324 v2 pith:AOD3BX2J submitted 2024-11-13 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords llmscontinuousdailydataevaluationperformancebenchmarksevent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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Many existing evaluation benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs) quickly become outdated due to the emergence of new models and training data.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 Our findings reveal that as pre-training data becomes outdated, LLM performance degrades over time.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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Pitfalls in Evaluating Language Model Forecasters

    cs.LG 2025-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic critique showing temporal leakage and extrapolation flaws can undermine claims that LLM forecasters match or beat humans.

Pith tools