Do Large Language Models (LLMs) Understand Chronology?
Pattaraphon Kenny Wongchamcharoen, Paul Glasserman

TL;DR
This paper investigates whether large language models understand chronology by testing them on ordering, filtering, and anachronism detection tasks, revealing that explicit reasoning improves performance significantly.
Contribution
It demonstrates that explicit reasoning enhances LLMs' ability to handle chronological tasks, especially with GPT-5 achieving flawless ordering at higher reasoning efforts.
Findings
Exact match rates decline with longer sequences.
Explicit reasoning improves ordering accuracy.
Performance drops on complex anachronism detection.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in finance and economics, where prompt-based attempts against look-ahead bias implicitly assume that models understand chronology. We test this fundamental question with a series of chronological ordering tasks with increasing complexities over facts the model already knows from pre-training. Our tasks cover (1) chronological ordering, (2) conditional sorting (filter, then order), and (3) anachronism detection. We evaluate GPT-4.1, Claude-3.7 Sonnet, with and without Extended Thinking (ET), and GPT-5 across multiple reasoning-effort settings. Across models, Exact match rate drops sharply as sequences lengthen even while rank correlations stay high as LLMs largely preserve local order but struggle to maintain a single globally consistent timeline. In conditional sorting, most failures stem from the filtering step rather than the ordering…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsStock Market Forecasting Methods · Big Data and Digital Economy · Topic Modeling
