TPP-LLM: Modeling Temporal Point Processes by Efficiently Fine-Tuning Large Language Models
Zefang Liu, Yinzhu Quan

TL;DR
TPP-LLM introduces a framework that combines large language models with temporal point processes, leveraging textual event descriptions and efficient fine-tuning to improve event sequence modeling and prediction accuracy.
Contribution
It presents a novel integration of LLMs with TPPs using parameter-efficient fine-tuning, capturing semantic and temporal information effectively.
Findings
Outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in event prediction
Utilizes textual descriptions for richer semantic modeling
Achieves improved efficiency with PEFT methods
Abstract
Temporal point processes (TPPs) are widely used to model the timing and occurrence of events in domains such as social networks, transportation systems, and e-commerce. In this paper, we introduce TPP-LLM, a novel framework that integrates large language models (LLMs) with TPPs to capture both the semantic and temporal aspects of event sequences. Unlike traditional methods that rely on categorical event type representations, TPP-LLM directly utilizes the textual descriptions of event types, enabling the model to capture rich semantic information embedded in the text. While LLMs excel at understanding event semantics, they are less adept at capturing temporal patterns. To address this, TPP-LLM incorporates temporal embeddings and employs parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods to effectively learn temporal dynamics without extensive retraining. This approach improves both…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
1. Utilizing LLMs to enhance TPP modeling is an important and interesting attempt for event sequence modeling. 2. Extensive experiments show the superior ability of TPP-LLM compared to existing neural TPP models. 3. The paper is mostly well-writing. The problem background and related work is detailed.
1. The novelty of the approach seems to be somewhat limited. The most contribution is to utilize the description of event types as the input of LLM, and then prompting and fine-tuning the LLM with TPP losses. This improvement seems to be incremental and straightforward, which is also my main concern. 2. The overall result improvements seem to be marginal as shown in Table 2. Most of the best results are from the baseline methods. 3. In 5.7.3, it would be helpful to make further explanation and o
see summary
This paper is slightly below the acceptance bar because (1) lack of related works and baselines; (2), limited improvements on experiment results compared with baselines; (3) unreasonable method in the experiment. Specifically, 1. There are some related works that this paper may overlook, such as Meta TPP [ICLR’23], Fully neural network for TPP [Neurips’19], etc. It seems that Meta TPP [ICLR’23] achieves 46% on next event type prediction on StackOverflow, which is higher than TPP-LLM proposed by
(1) This paper introduces convincing motivations to study an important problem, event prediction. This paper also has clear problem formulations to split the prediction into event type classification and event time regression. This paper’s presentation is good. (2) This paper shows solid mathematical derivations of the eventual loss function for TPP-LLM, which consolidates the proposed contribution of integrating TPPs with LLMs. (3) This paper conducts comprehensive experiments across dive
(1) This paper has limited technical novelty. As TPPs, LLMs, and PEFT have been well-known strategies for event prediction, TPP-LLM is a new integrating application, but does not involve fundamental innovations in either semantic or temporal modeling. (2) The baseline comparisons are not fair. For Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, the four baselines (NHP, SAHP, THP, AttNHP) are not empowered by state-of-the-art LLMs. However, in Section 2 (from line 100 to line 102), LAMP [1] leverages generative LLMs to ha
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTopic Modeling
