aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces Time Puzzles, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate iterative temporal reasoning in large language models using tool-based search capabilities. The study reveals a significant performance gap where even top-tier models struggle with date inference tasks unless constraints are explicitly rewritten, highlighting current limitations in reliable tool use for dynamic reasoning.
Measuring Iterative Temporal Reasoning with Time Puzzles
arXiv:2601.07148v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Tool use, such as web search, has become a standard capability even in freely available large language models (LLMs). However, existing benchmarks evaluate temporal reasoning mainly in static, non-tool-using settings, which poorly reflect how LLMs perform temporal reasoning in practice. We introduce Time Puzzles, a constraint-based date inference task for evaluating iterative temporal reasoning with tools. Each puzzle combines factual temporal anchors with (cross-cultural) calendar relations and may admit one or multiple valid dates. The puzzles are algorithmically generated, enabling controlled and continual evaluation. Across 13 LLMs, even the best model (GPT-5) achieves only 55.3% accuracy without tools, despite using easily searchable facts. While web search improves performance, models perform substantially better when constraints are rewritten with explicit dates, removing the need for factual lookup. These results reveal a gap in reliable tool use for iterative temporal reasoning.
Abstract:Tool use, such as web search, has become a standard capability even in freely available large language models (LLMs). However, existing benchmarks evaluate temporal reasoning mainly in static, non-tool-using settings, which poorly reflect how LLMs perform temporal reasoning in practice. We introduce Time Puzzles, a constraint-based date inference task for evaluating iterative temporal reasoning with tools. Each puzzle combines factual temporal anchors with (cross-cultural) calendar relations and may admit one or multiple valid dates. The puzzles are algorithmically generated, enabling controlled and continual evaluation. Across 13 LLMs, even the best model (GPT-5) achieves only 55.3% accuracy without tools, despite using easily searchable facts. While web search improves performance, models perform substantially better when constraints are rewritten with explicit dates, removing the need for factual lookup. These results reveal a gap in reliable tool use for iterative temporal reasoning.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2601.07148 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2601.07148v4 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.07148 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 234 words
Related coverage

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026

Encoded Coordination on the Open Web
LessWrong · Sep 23, 2026

Expenditure Horizon: Measuring Optimization Ability, with an Application to NanoGPT
METR · Jul 21, 2026