Temporal Intelligence: Beyond the Clockwork Mind

Introduction: From Calculation to Cognition

The notion of a machine that thinks has long been intertwined with the metaphor of a clockwork mechanism—a device of intricate gears and springs, ticking along a predetermined, linear path. This "clockwork mind," however, fails to capture the essence of intelligence, particularly when it comes to understanding time. Time, for an intelligent system, is not a metronomic beat to be measured but a complex, multidimensional fabric of events, relationships, and causal chains to be navigated. The true frontier of artificial intelligence (AI) lies not in building faster clocks, but in creating a "calculating mind"—a system that can reason about time computationally. This distinction is crucial. Comparing the clock speed of a modern GPU, on the order of gigahertz, to the firing frequency of a human neuron, around 1-100 Hz, and concluding that AI "thinks" faster is a profoundly misleading analogy.The period of a GPU's clock cycle, a mere nanosecond, does not correspond to a meaningful computational step; complex operations like matrix multiplications, the very foundation of modern neural networks, require thousands of such cycles. AI does not experience the passage of time; it calculates it, processing information through patterns, logic, and inference. This computational nature of AI's temporal faculty echoes the philosophical questions raised by thought experiments like John Searle's Chinese Room, which argues that the syntactic manipulation of symbols does not, in itself, constitute semantic understanding or consciousness. To teach a machine to understand time is not to imbue it with a subjective sense of its flow, but to equip it with the computational tools to deconstruct, model, and act upon its structure.

The Limits of Looking Backward (Time-Series Forecasting)

The most common and well-established form of temporal computation in AI is time-series forecasting. At its core, time-series forecasting is the process of using a collection of historical data points, recorded at regular intervals, to predict future values in a sequence. This technique is the workhorse of many industries, from predicting retail sales to forecasting energy consumption and stock prices. Statistical methods like Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and exponential smoothing have long provided a foundation for this task, modelling linear trends and seasonality. More recently, AI and machine learning models, particularly deep learning architectures like Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, have revolutionised the field by capturing more complex, non-linear, and dynamic temporal patterns. These models can process vast datasets, incorporate multiple external variables, and adapt as new data becomes available, significantly improving predictive accuracy over traditional methods.

However, despite these advances, time-series forecasting is fundamentally limited. It operates on a core assumption of stationarity, meaning it presumes that the statistical properties of the data, such as mean and variance, do not change over time. This assumption is frequently violated in complex, real-world systems. Financial markets, for example, are subject to sudden structural breaks caused by regulatory shifts, economic crises, or geopolitical events that render historical patterns irrelevant. A model trained on pre-pandemic sales data, for instance, would be utterly incapable of forecasting demand during a global lockdown. This reliance on historical data makes time-series models inherently backward-looking and vulnerable in volatile, fast-changing environments. Furthermore, these models are fundamentally correlational, not causal. They identify that two variables move together but cannot explain why or determine if one causes the other. This inability to distinguish correlation from causation is a critical failure point, leading to flawed decision-making and a superficial understanding of the systems they model. Predicting the future requires more than extrapolating the past; it requires understanding the underlying mechanisms that generate the future.

Defining Temporal Intelligence (TI)

To move beyond these limitations, the field is coalescing around a more sophisticated and holistic paradigm: Temporal Intelligence (TI). TI is not merely an incremental improvement on forecasting; it represents a fundamental shift in how machines interact with the dimension of time. It treats time not as a simple, static variable to be measured, but as a rich, dynamic context to be understood and reasoned about. Temporal Intelligence is a dynamic, time-based analysis method that utilizes historical data to create timelines, recognize patterns, and project future risks. It is the cognitive capacity to reason and plan with time as a critical factor, understanding how timing, pacing, and sequencing affect the potential success of actions. A system with Temporal Intelligence possesses a suite of interconnected capabilities that far exceed simple prediction :

1. Perceiving Time: It can recognise and interpret sequences, durations, rhythms, and cycles within data streams, understanding that a request made during a system outage carries a different weight than one made during normal operations.

2. Reasoning in Time: It moves beyond correlation to analyze causal links and trends. It can construct a chronological series of events, creating a timeline that provides a clear understanding of what happened when, and can infer the temporal relationships between those events.

3. Remembering the Past: It can efficiently leverage relevant historical context, recalling past experiences to inform present actions and future plans.

4. Anticipating the Future: Crucially, it forecasts multiple plausible future scenarios, not just a single, deterministic outcome. This allows for strategic planning and risk mitigation by considering a range of possibilities.

5. Acting in the Present: It executes decisions in real-time with a deep awareness of the temporal context, calibrating actions to the moment and matching the pace and urgency of an unfolding situation.

In essence, Temporal Intelligence empowers an AI to shift from being reactive to proactive, from a passive forecaster to an active, "time-wise" agent. It is about building models that don't just operate in time, but can reason across timelines, anticipate causality, and act effectively within complex, evolving systems.

Report Trajectory

This report will chart the course from the foundational principles of temporal computation to the frontiers of AI research. It is structured to build a comprehensive understanding of what it means to teach a machine to understand time.

Part I: The Architecture of Temporal Reasoning will explore the fundamental models and formalisms that allow machines to represent time in a structured and sophisticated manner, moving from classical logic to modern knowledge graphs and neuro-symbolic hybrids.

Part II: The Agent in Time will shift the focus from passive reasoning to active decision-making, investigating how Temporal Intelligence empowers AI agents to navigate and act within dynamic, non-stationary, and asynchronous environments.

Part III: The Future of Temporal Cognition will look toward the horizon, examining cutting-edge concepts like continuous-time models, multi-modal reasoning, and the ultimate expression of Temporal Intelligence: the creation of AI systems that can build and reason with their own internal world models.

Part I: The Architecture of Temporal Reasoning

To build machines that can reason about time, we must first equip them with a language to represent it. The development of temporal representation in AI reflects a profound intellectual journey, one that has progressed from the rigid certainty of formal logic to the scalable, data-driven flexibility of modern neural architectures. This evolution is not a simple replacement of old methods with new ones, but rather a dialectical process where each paradigm emerges to address the inherent limitations of its predecessor.

Formal logic, for instance, provides a framework for provably correct reasoning but struggles with the noise, ambiguity, and sheer scale of real-world data. In response, Temporal Knowledge Graphs (TKGs) were developed to structure and manage vast, dynamic relational datasets, but they face their own challenges with inference and data incompleteness. This has led to the rise of neuro-symbolic systems, which explicitly seek to synthesize the deductive power of logic with the robust learning capabilities of neural networks. This trajectory reveals a central tension in AI: the trade-off between logical soundness and empirical robustness. Understanding this progression provides a powerful framework for comprehending the entire landscape of temporal reasoning, explaining why purely statistical models like Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail at tasks requiring temporal logic and why the future of the field points decisively towards integrated, hybrid systems.

Section 1: Deconstructing Time: From Points to Narratives

The first step in building a temporal reasoning system is to decide how time itself will be represented. This foundational choice dictates the kinds of relationships the system can model and the types of inferences it can make. The history of AI has seen this problem approached from several distinct angles, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

1.1 Temporal Representation: The Building Blocks of Time

The challenge of representing temporal knowledge is fundamental to modeling causation, constructing plans, and hypothesizing the outcomes of actions. Early AI research established two primary, and in some ways competing, approaches to this problem: point-based and interval-based representations.

Point-Based Systems treat time as an infinitely divisible collection of points. A prominent example is McDermott's temporal logic, which defines a precedence operator on these points, allowing for a model of time that is dense, continuous, and infinite in both directions. A key feature of such systems is the ability to model branching futures, where multiple possible world situations can diverge from a single point in time, though these branches are typically not allowed to reconverge. This approach is powerful for representing instantaneous events and modeling uncertainty about the future.

Interval-Based Systems, pioneered by James Allen, offer a more intuitive way to represent events that have duration. Instead of points, the fundamental primitives are intervals of time. Allen's interval algebra defines a set of thirteen mutually exclusive base relations that can exist between any two intervals, including before (and its inverse after), meets (met-by), overlaps (overlapped-by), starts (started-by), during (contains), ends (ended-by), and equals. This relational algebra allows for qualitative reasoning about the temporal structure of events without needing precise timestamps. For example, knowing that event A occurred during event B, and event B occurred before event C, allows the system to infer that A occurred before C.

Recognizing the complementary strengths of these two views, some research has focused on developing Hybrid Frameworks that combine point-based and interval-based logic. These systems aim to leverage the metric precision of points (e.g., allowing for explicit bounds on an event's duration) with the relational richness of intervals, creating a more expressive temporal framework.

Alongside these formalisms for time itself, AI researchers developed calculi for reasoning about action and change within a temporal context. The Situation Calculus, developed by John McCarthy, was one of the most influential early models. It represents the world as a series of "situations," which are essentially snapshots of the world at a particular moment. Properties of the world that can change over time are called "fluents." Actions are modeled as functions that transform one situation into another. For example, the action give(John, Mary, Book) would transform a situation where HOLDS(Have(John, Book), s1) is true into a new situation s2 where HOLDS(Have(Mary, Book), s2) is true. While foundational, the classic Situation Calculus had significant limitations, most notably its inability to represent concurrent actions or events with varying durations. This inadequacy for many real-world reasoning tasks spurred the development of more advanced formalisms, such as the Event Calculus, which provides a more sophisticated framework for representing and reasoning about events and their effects over time.

1.2 Temporal Knowledge Graphs (TKGs): Structuring Evolving Facts

While formal logics provide a powerful foundation for temporal reasoning, they often struggle to scale to the size and complexity of real-world knowledge. Much of the world's factual information is not static; facts are often true only within a specific time frame. For example, the fact (Barack Obama, isPresidentOf, USA) is true only for the interval [2009-01-20, 2017-01-20]. Static knowledge graphs (KGs), which represent facts as (head, relation, tail) triples, cannot capture this dynamism. This critical limitation led to the development of Temporal Knowledge Graphs (TKGs).

A TKG extends the static KG framework by adding a temporal dimension, typically representing facts as quadruples of the form (head, relation, tail, timestamp). This timestamp can be a single point in time or a time interval, allowing the graph to model the evolution of entities and relations over time. A TKG can be conceptualized as a sequence of KG snapshots, each capturing the state of the world at a different moment.

The central computational task associated with TKGs is Temporal Knowledge Graph Representation Learning (TKGRL). The goal of TKGRL is to learn low-dimensional vector embeddings for the entities, relations, and temporal components of the graph. These embeddings encode the complex, evolving relationships within the data and can be used for various downstream tasks. A wide array of TKGRL methods have been developed, leveraging different architectural principles. Early approaches often relied on tensor decomposition, viewing the TKG as a 4th-order tensor to be factorized. More recent and powerful methods utilize neural architectures.

Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) are a natural fit for modeling the sequential nature of temporal facts, capturing how entity and relation embeddings change over time.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are used to model the structural dependencies within each snapshot of the TKG, capturing spatio-temporal patterns. And

Transformer models, with their attention mechanisms, have proven effective at capturing long-range dependencies and complex interactions between related variables over extended time periods. Despite their power, TKGs are plagued by a fundamental challenge: incompleteness. Real-world knowledge bases are always missing facts, and this problem is exacerbated in the temporal domain. This makes

Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion (TKGC)—the task of predicting missing links (i.e., predicting (h, r,?, t) or (?, r, o, t))—a crucial area of research. TKGC is exceptionally difficult because it often requires reasoning about entities and timestamps that were not seen during training, demanding that models learn to extrapolate to the future rather than simply interpolating the past. Successfully addressing these challenges enables powerful applications, including time-aware recommender systems, dynamic entity alignment between different knowledge bases, and sophisticated temporal question answering. A particularly promising application domain is personalized medicine, where a patient's electronic health record can be modeled as a TKG. By representing the sequence of diagnoses, medications, and procedures as a series of graph snapshots, TKGRL models can be trained to predict the likelihood of future disorders, offering a powerful tool for proactive and personalized healthcare.

1.3 Neuro-Symbolic Frameworks: The Best of Both Worlds

The journey from formal logic to knowledge graphs highlights the persistent tension between reasoning and learning. Symbolic systems, rooted in logic, offer explainability and provable correctness but are often brittle and fail to scale or handle the inherent noise of real-world data. Conversely, neural systems excel at learning robust patterns from vast, unstructured data but operate as opaque "black boxes," lacking transparent reasoning processes.

Neuro-Symbolic (NeSy) AI has emerged as a vibrant research field dedicated to bridging this divide by creating hybrid systems that integrate the strengths of both paradigms.

A key area of NeSy research involves integrating temporal logic—a formal language for specifying and verifying properties over time—with neural networks. One approach uses

Signal Temporal Logic (STL), a logic for reasoning about the properties of real-valued signals over time. In a model like the Neuro-Symbolic Time Series Classifier (NSTSC), each neuron in a network is directly associated with a symbolic STL sub-formula. The network is trained end-to-end, and its final output is not just a classification label but a human-readable, interpretable STL formula that describes the temporal and logical patterns it discovered in the data. Another powerful approach leverages

Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), which is widely used to specify dynamic constraints for autonomous agents. Frameworks like Logic Tensor Networks (LTNs) achieve this integration by relaxing the crisp, binary nature of classical logic into a differentiable, fuzzy logic. This allows LTL formulas to be incorporated directly into the loss function of a neural network. The network can then learn symbol groundings—for example, classifying objects in a sequence of video frames—that maximize the satisfaction of the given temporal formula, effectively using the logical specification to guide the learning process.

Beyond temporal logic, other NeSy systems incorporate the Event Calculus, a rich logical formalism for reasoning about events and their effects over time. In a hybrid architecture for complex event recognition, a neural network can be used for the perceptual task of interpreting raw sensory input (e.g., identifying objects and actions in video frames), while the Event Calculus provides the high-level symbolic backbone for reasoning about the sequence of these events, their participants, their causal relationships, and their outcomes. This division of labor allows the system to learn effectively from sparse data and generalize to novel, unseen events by leveraging the structured background knowledge encoded in the symbolic layer.

A very recent and promising trend in NeSy involves using the advanced natural language capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). In this paradigm, the LLM is not used as the final reasoner but as a powerful "translator" or "programmer." Given a question posed in natural language, the LLM's task is to translate it into a formal, symbolic representation, such as a Python script or a logical formula. This symbolic representation is then executed by a deterministic, reliable symbolic solver (e.g., the Python interpreter). This approach cleverly leverages the respective strengths of each component: the LLM handles the ambiguity and nuance of natural language, while the symbolic engine performs the precise, logical, and mathematical calculations required for rigorous temporal reasoning. This has been shown to significantly improve accuracy on complex temporal question-answering tasks.

Table 1: A Comparative Taxonomy of Temporal Reasoning Approaches

This table serves to crystallize the distinct philosophies and trade-offs inherent in each major approach to temporal reasoning. It illustrates a clear trajectory: from the purely statistical (Time-Series Forecasting) and purely logical (Temporal Logic) ends of the spectrum towards more integrated and powerful paradigms. Time-Series Forecasting is powerful for prediction in stable environments but fails when underlying dynamics change or when causal understanding is needed. Temporal Logic offers rigor but lacks the flexibility to handle the messiness of the real world. Temporal Knowledge Graphs were developed to bridge this gap by structuring real-world, dynamic data, but the task of learning from and completing these graphs remains a significant challenge. Neuro-Symbolic Systems represent the most direct attempt to synthesize these opposing strengths, creating models that can both learn from data and reason with formal knowledge. This comparative analysis demonstrates that no single approach is a panacea. Instead, the future of Temporal Intelligence lies in the thoughtful integration of these diverse techniques, paving the way for the more advanced capabilities of causal inference and autonomous agency to be explored in the subsequent sections.

Section 2: The Causal Arrow: Anticipating Effects in Dynamic Systems

A machine that can accurately predict the future based on past patterns possesses a useful skill. However, a machine that can understand why the future unfolds as it does, and can predict how its own actions might change that future, possesses a form of intelligence that is qualitatively more powerful. The integration of causal inference into temporal modelling marks this fundamental leap—from a descriptive or predictive AI that asks "what will happen?" to a prescriptive and interventional AI that can answer "what should we do?" and "what if we had done things differently?". This is not merely an incremental improvement in forecasting accuracy; it is a transformation in capability, elevating AI from a passive analyst to a strategic advisor. The significant challenges in this domain reveal a deep truth: genuine temporal intelligence requires more than just a model of the world's surface-level patterns; it demands a model of the world's underlying causal mechanisms.

2.1 The Pitfalls of Correlation in a Dynamic World

The vast majority of traditional machine learning and time-series models are correlational in nature. They are exceptionally good at identifying statistical associations in data, but this strength is also their greatest weakness. As the adage goes, correlation does not imply causation, and acting on spurious correlations can lead to disastrously wrong decisions, particularly in dynamic and complex systems.

Consider a few compelling real-world examples. A marketing team launches a major advertising campaign and observes a 15% increase in sales. A correlation-based AI would flag this as a success and recommend investing more in similar campaigns. However, it cannot determine if the campaign caused the sales boost. Perhaps a major competitor suffered a data breach that same week, or a seasonal spike in demand coincidentally occurred, or an influential celebrity happened to endorse the product independently. Without understanding the true cause, the company might waste millions on ineffective advertising that merely coincided with a lucky break. Similarly, a retail company might observe that its stores with in-house coffee shops generate significantly higher revenue. Acting on this correlation, it invests heavily in installing coffee shops in all its locations, only to see sales barely move. A causal analysis might have revealed that the coffee shops did not cause the higher sales; rather, both were the result of a confounding variable—the fact that these stores were located in high-traffic, affluent neighborhoods.

These failures stem from the "black box" nature of many predictive models, which learn input-output mappings without developing an underlying model of the system's causal structure. They treat the world as a static set of patterns, which works well in stable conditions but fails completely when the underlying causal structures change, as they did during the COVID-19 pandemic or major supply chain disruptions. This exposes the "fundamental problem of causal inference": for any given individual or situation, we can only ever observe one outcome (the one that actually happened). We cannot simultaneously observe the counterfactual outcome (what would have happened under a different action or condition). Overcoming this challenge requires moving beyond correlation and adopting a new set of tools designed specifically for causal reasoning.

2.2 Causal AI: From Discovery to Inference

In response to these limitations, the field of Causal AI has emerged, drawing heavily on the foundational work of computer scientist and philosopher Judea Pearl. Causal AI is a specialized discipline focused on developing methods to uncover, model, and reason about true cause-and-effect relationships. Pearl's "Ladder of Causation" provides a conceptual framework for understanding the different levels of causal reasoning:

1. Level 1: Association (Seeing). This is the level of standard statistical and machine learning models. It involves observing correlations and patterns, such as P(Y|X) (the probability of Y given X).

2. Level 2: Intervention (Doing). This level involves asking "what if" questions about actions. It seeks to understand what happens to a system when we actively intervene and change a variable, represented by the do-operator, as in P(Y|do(X)).

3. Level 3: Counterfactuals (Imagining). This is the highest level of causal reasoning. It involves reasoning about what would have happened in a different, imaginary world. For example, "What would sales have been if we had not launched the ad campaign, given that we did launch it and sales were Y?"

The first step toward climbing this ladder is Causal Discovery, the task of inferring the causal structure of a system from observational data, particularly time-series data.57 Several families of algorithms have been developed for this purpose :

• Granger Causality: This is a widely used statistical concept for time-series data. Informally, a variable X is said to "Granger-cause" a variable Y if past values of X contain information that helps predict future values of Y, above and beyond the information contained in past values of Y alone. While powerful, Granger causality is primarily linear and can be misled by unobserved confounding variables.

• Constraint-Based Methods: These algorithms, such as the PC and FCI algorithms adapted for temporal data, work by performing a series of conditional independence tests on the data. They start with a fully connected graph and systematically remove edges between variables that are found to be independent, conditioned on other variables, eventually revealing the underlying causal skeleton.

• Score-Based Methods: These methods approach causal discovery as a search problem. They define a scoring function (e.g., Bayesian Information Criterion) that measures how well a given causal graph structure fits the observed data, and then search for the graph that maximizes this score.

• Functional Causal Models (FCMs): These methods assume a specific functional form for the relationship between cause and effect. A well-known example is the Linear Non-Gaussian Acyclic Model (LiNGAM), which can identify causal direction by leveraging the non-Gaussianity of the data distributions.

A new and exciting direction in this space is Causal Pretraining. This approach leverages deep learning to train a neural network to perform causal discovery in a supervised fashion. The model is trained on massive amounts of synthetic time-series data where the ground-truth causal graph is known. The goal is to learn a direct mapping from the time-series data to its underlying causal graph, allowing for exceptionally efficient causal discovery on new, unseen data at inference time.

2.3 Interventional and Counterfactual Reasoning

Discovering the causal graph is only the first step. The true power of Causal AI is realized when this structural knowledge is used for interventional and counterfactual reasoning. By representing the causal system as a

Structural Causal Model (SCM)—a set of equations where each variable is defined as a function of its direct causes and a random noise term—we can mathematically simulate the effect of interventions. Using Pearl's do-calculus, we can modify the SCM to reflect an intervention (e.g., setting the value of "ad spend" to a specific amount) and then compute the resulting probability distribution of the outcome variable (e.g., "sales").

This capability transforms AI from a tool for passive analysis into a powerful engine for active decision-making and policy evaluation. The applications are vast and transformative:

• Healthcare: A Causal AI system can move beyond simply correlating a drug with patient outcomes. By modeling confounding factors like age, lifestyle, and treatment adherence, it can estimate the true causal effect of the medication, enabling the development of more effective and personalized treatment plans.

• Finance: In financial markets, where complex feedback loops and hidden confounders are rampant, Causal AI can help analysts move beyond simple correlations in asset prices. By discovering the causal drivers of market dynamics, it can support more robust factor-based investing strategies, improve portfolio diversification, and provide a deeper understanding of systemic risk. It can also be used to rigorously evaluate the causal impact of new financial regulations on market stability and liquidity.

• Marketing: Causal AI revolutionizes marketing attribution. Instead of relying on simplistic "last-touch" models or flawed correlations, it can build a causal model of the customer journey to estimate the true causal impact of each marketing touchpoint (e.g., an email, a social media ad, a search result) on the final conversion. This allows marketers to optimize their budget allocation, focusing resources on the channels that genuinely cause customer purchases, rather than those that are merely associated with them.

By embracing causality, Temporal Intelligence equips machines with the ability to reason about the consequences of actions, to imagine alternative worlds, and to provide not just predictions, but actionable, strategic insights. This is the bridge from knowing what is likely to happen to understanding how to make better things happen.

Part II: The Agent in Time

Having established the architectural foundations for representing and reasoning about temporal and causal structures, we now turn our attention to the active component of intelligence: agency. An agent is a system that perceives its environment and acts upon it to achieve goals. For an AI agent, effective action in the real world is an inherently temporal problem. The environment is not a static chessboard; it is a dynamic, evolving system where the rules themselves can change over time. This property, known as non-stationarity, poses a fundamental challenge to traditional AI and reinforcement learning techniques. Successfully navigating such an environment requires more than just a good policy for a fixed state; it requires the ability to detect, understand, and adapt to change. This necessity for adaptation creates a powerful, intrinsic link between temporal reasoning, causal understanding, and learning. The most capable agents will be those that can build, maintain, and continuously update a causal, temporal model of their world. The challenges of agency reveal that temporality and causality are not abstract problems to be solved in isolation; they are the essential, intertwined ingredients for creating truly intelligent systems that can thrive in a world of constant flux.

Section 3: Acting in Evolving Worlds: Temporal Intelligence and Agency

The ultimate goal of building intelligent systems is not just to have them understand the world, but to have them act effectively within it. This requires the development of autonomous agents—systems capable of pursuing goals and completing tasks on behalf of users with minimal human intervention. The shift from passive, monolithic models to active, often collaborative, agent-based systems represents a significant evolution in AI, enabling more complex and adaptive problem-solving.

3.1 Autonomous Agents and Levels of Autonomy

An autonomous AI agent is defined by its ability to perceive its environment through sensors or data inputs, make independent decisions based on that perception and its internal goals, and execute actions to affect the environment. What distinguishes a truly autonomous agent from simple automation is its capacity for iterative reasoning: it can formulate a plan, execute it, evaluate the outcome, and adapt its future plans based on what it has learned.

The field has begun to conceptualize agency along a spectrum of increasing autonomy, much like the levels defined for autonomous driving :

• Level 1: Chain (Rule-based Automation). These systems follow a predefined sequence of actions, such as in Robotic Process Automation (RPA) where data is extracted from an invoice and entered into a database according to a fixed script.

• Level 2: Workflow (Dynamic Sequencing). Here, the actions are predefined, but the sequence can be determined dynamically. A Large Language Model (LLM) might be used as a "router" to decide the next step in a customer service workflow based on the user's query.

• Level 3: Partially Autonomous (Goal-oriented Planning). Given a high-level goal, the agent can plan, execute, and adjust a sequence of actions using a specific set of tools with minimal human oversight. An example is an agent that resolves a customer support ticket by autonomously interacting with multiple internal systems.

• Level 4: Fully Autonomous (Proactive Goal Setting). The highest level of agency involves systems that operate with little to no human oversight, can work across different domains, proactively set their own goals, and even create or select their own tools to achieve them. A strategic research agent that independently discovers, synthesizes, and summarizes information on a given topic would fall into this category.

This progression is mirrored by a taxonomy of agent architectures. A simple reflex agent acts solely based on its current perception. A model-based agent maintains an internal model of the world, allowing it to predict the effects of its actions and plan ahead. A goal-based agent acts to achieve explicit goals, while a utility-based agent goes a step further by choosing actions that maximize a utility function, allowing it to handle trade-offs between conflicting goals. Finally, a learning agent is one that can improve its performance over time through experience. This evolution from simple, reactive systems to complex, learning-based ones is facilitated by a broader architectural shift from monolithic AI models to compound AI systems, where multiple specialized agents collaborate to solve multifaceted problems.

3.2 The Challenge of Non-Stationarity in Reinforcement Learning

Reinforcement Learning (RL) is the primary paradigm for training learning agents. In RL, an agent learns a policy—a mapping from states to actions—by interacting with an environment and receiving reward signals. The foundational framework for RL is the

Markov Decision Process (MDP), which assumes that the environment is stationary: the transition probabilities (the likelihood of moving from one state to another given an action) and the reward function are fixed and do not change over time.

This stationarity assumption is a major roadblock for applying RL to most real-world problems. Environments like financial markets, urban traffic systems, and global supply chains are inherently non-stationary; their underlying dynamics are constantly changing. An RL agent trained to optimize a supply chain strategy based on historical data will fail when a new trade tariff is introduced or a shipping lane is blocked. This challenge has given rise to a dedicated subfield of research focused on RL in non-stationary environments.

A survey of the field reveals several key approaches to tackling this problem :

• Change Point Detection: These methods employ statistical algorithms to continuously monitor the data stream of states and rewards from the environment. When a significant change in the data's statistics is detected, it signals that the environment's dynamics have shifted. This detection can then trigger the agent to discard its old policy and start learning a new one adapted to the new conditions.

• Contextual or Hidden-Mode MDPs: This approach models the non-stationary environment as a collection of different "contexts" or "modes," each of which is a stationary MDP. The agent's task then becomes twofold: it must learn an optimal policy for each mode, and it must also infer which mode it is currently in based on its observations. This allows the agent to switch between pre-learned policies as the environment changes.

• Meta-Reinforcement Learning: In meta-RL, the goal is to "learn to learn." The agent is trained across a wide distribution of different (but related) tasks or environments. By doing so, it learns an adaptive policy that can be quickly fine-tuned to a new, unseen environment with very few samples, making it robust to change.

• Causal Reinforcement Learning (CRL): A more advanced approach involves embedding causal knowledge into the RL agent. By learning a causal model of the environment, the agent can generalize better and adapt more robustly to changes, as it understands the underlying mechanisms driving the environment's dynamics rather than just surface-level correlations. This is particularly effective for non-stationary environments where the changes are structural.

• Combating Catastrophic Forgetting: A major issue in continual learning is that as an agent adapts to a new environment, it can completely forget the knowledge it acquired in previous environments. This is known as catastrophic forgetting. To address this, methods like Locally Constrained Policy Optimization (LCPO) have been developed. LCPO works by anchoring the agent's policy, constraining it to not deviate too much from its behavior on old experiences while it optimizes for the new context, thus preserving past knowledge.

A subtle but profound challenge in this domain is the "tempo" problem. In most research setups, the environment changes in discrete steps tied to the agent's training episodes. However, in the real world, environmental changes occur in continuous, wall-clock time, independent of the agent's actions or learning schedule. This introduces a critical trade-off: should the agent spend more time interacting with the environment to gather more data (potentially falling behind as the environment changes), or should it spend more time training on its current data to refine its policy (potentially acting on an outdated model of the world)? The agent's "tempo" (its pace of learning and acting) must be synchronized with the environment's "tempo" (its pace of change) for optimal performance. This insight highlights that truly adaptive agency requires a deep, intrinsic understanding of time.

3.3 Reasoning Across Asynchronous Timelines

The complexity of temporal agency is further magnified in scenarios that involve multiple, interacting processes that do not operate on a single, synchronized clock. This is the asynchronous planning problem, which is common in logistics, robotics, manufacturing, and project management. A task like baking a cake, for example, involves both sequential steps (you must mix the ingredients before you bake them) and parallel ones (you can preheat the oven while you mix the ingredients). An optimal plan must correctly reason about these dependencies to minimize the total time required. This compositional task, involving time summation, comparison, and constrained optimization, is notoriously difficult for current AI models.

Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) provide a natural framework for addressing these kinds of problems. In a MAS, a complex task is decomposed and distributed among multiple autonomous agents. Each agent can operate on its own timeline, pursuing its own sub-goals, and their actions can be executed asynchronously. Coordination is achieved through communication and interaction. Frameworks like Microsoft's AutoGen and GPTeam provide simulation environments where developers can create teams of specialized AI agents that collaborate to solve problems, with visualization tools to track and compare the asynchronous timelines of each agent's activities.

The rise of explicit reasoning models in AI is poised to enhance these capabilities significantly. Unlike traditional models that produce an output in a single step, reasoning models employ techniques like chain-of-thought to explicitly generate a series of intermediate reasoning steps, explore multiple possible solution paths, and even perform self-verification before arriving at a final answer. This structured, multi-step approach to problem-solving is far better suited for the complex planning and logical deduction required in asynchronous environments. By integrating these advanced reasoning capabilities into multi-agent systems, it becomes possible to build sophisticated AI teams that can plan and execute complex, multi-step workflows across different domains and asynchronous timelines, orchestrating actions with a deep understanding of their temporal and causal dependencies.

Section 4: The Language of Time: LLMs and the Challenge of Temporal Understanding

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated astonishing capabilities across a vast range of tasks, leading many to view them as a pivotal step towards artificial general intelligence. Their fluency in generating human-like text and answering complex questions suggests a deep understanding of the world. However, when it comes to the domain of time, LLMs exhibit a profound and revealing paradox: they possess an immense repository of factual knowledge about events that occurred in time, yet they lack a robust, coherent, and underlying model of time itself. Their failures in temporal reasoning are not random errors but systematic shortcomings that stem directly from their architectural nature as massive, correlational pattern-matching systems rather than logical reasoners. This paradox is illuminating. It reveals that simply scaling up data and model size is insufficient to achieve genuine temporal intelligence. The path forward, as indicated by a wave of recent research, lies in architectural innovation—specifically, in augmenting the linguistic prowess of LLMs with the structured, formal reasoning capabilities of the systems discussed in Part I, such as temporal graphs and neuro-symbolic components.

4.1 The Apparent Competence and Deep-Seated Limitations of LLMs

On the surface, LLMs appear to be quite competent at temporal tasks. They can answer simple questions about when historical events occurred, generate narratives that seem chronologically coherent, and extract sequences of events from a text. This apparent competence is derived from the unimaginably vast corpus of text on which they are trained, which contains countless examples of temporal language and factual assertions. However, this is a "brittle" competence, one that shatters under closer scrutiny and more rigorous testing.

A deep dive into the research literature reveals a consistent and multifaceted set of limitations 82:

• Failure in Temporal Logic and Arithmetic: LLMs struggle profoundly with tasks that require precise, rule-based reasoning. When asked to perform simple temporal arithmetic (e.g., "What day will the 153rd day of the year be?") or to reason about the logical relationships between time intervals (as defined by Allen's interval algebra), their performance is often poor. This is because they do not "run math algorithms"; instead, they predict an answer based on statistical patterns seen in their training data. Their reasoning is not consistent or rule-based, leading to frequent and surprising errors on tasks that are trivial for traditional computers.

• Incoherence in Long Narratives: While LLMs can generate plausible short stories, their ability to maintain coherence breaks down over long contexts. They fail to consistently track the evolving relationships between characters, maintain causal consistency across different plot branches, and handle long-range dependencies between events mentioned far apart in a text. This limitation makes them unreliable for tasks like summarizing complex, evolving news events or understanding the full arc of a character's development in a novel.

• Static Knowledge and Temporal Drift: An LLM's knowledge is frozen at the time its training data was collected. This "knowledge cutoff" makes it fundamentally incapable of reasoning accurately about events that occur after its training. It struggles to reconcile conflicting facts from different time periods, often falling back on outdated information stored in its parameters even when presented with new, updated information in its context. This can lead to biases like "nostalgia bias" (over-reliance on historical data) or "neophilia bias" (over-emphasis on novelty), preventing the model from forming an accurate and up-to-date understanding of the world.

• Flawed Timeline Extraction: When tasked with constructing a timeline from a document like a news article, LLMs often struggle. Real-world texts rarely present events in a neat, chronological order; they use flashbacks, refer to future events, and describe multiple event threads simultaneously. LLMs have difficulty untangling these complex narrative structures to produce a factually correct, chronologically ordered timeline, often failing to maintain the correct structure even if they extract the right content.91

4.2 Probing the Flaws: A Review of Temporal Reasoning Benchmarks

The discovery and systematic analysis of these limitations have been driven by the development of specialized benchmarks designed specifically to probe the temporal reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Researchers quickly realized that standard NLP benchmarks were inadequate, as they often tested for knowledge that could be memorized from the training data rather than genuine reasoning ability. This led to the creation of a new generation of hermetic, often synthetic, benchmarks designed to isolate and evaluate specific temporal skills.

A survey of these key benchmarks reveals a concerted effort to create more rigorous and nuanced evaluation frameworks:

• TIME (Temporal Intelligence Multi-level Evaluation): This benchmark is designed to reflect the challenges of temporal reasoning in real-world scenarios. It is composed of three sub-datasets: TIME-Wiki for knowledge-intensive reasoning over structured temporal facts, TIME-News for understanding fast-changing event dynamics in news articles, and TIME-Dial for tracking complex temporal dependencies in long, multi-session dialogues.94

• TRAM (Temporal Reasoning for large lAnguage Models): TRAM is a comprehensive benchmark composed of ten different datasets, each focused on a specific aspect of temporal reasoning, such as event ordering, frequency, duration, and temporal arithmetic. To ensure a standardized and robust evaluation, all questions are formatted as multiple-choice tests.

• Test of Time (ToT): This benchmark is built on the insight that temporal reasoning involves two primary skills: understanding temporal semantics and logic, and performing temporal arithmetic. ToT uses a controllable, synthetic graph generation process to create two distinct sets of tasks, ToT-Semantic and ToT-Arithmetic, allowing for a decoupled analysis of these core abilities.

• Other Foundational Benchmarks: The field has been built upon a range of other important benchmarks, including TempQuestions and TempTabQA, which focus on temporal question answering over unstructured text and structured tables, respectively, and
  TGQA, a dataset for reasoning over temporal graphs.

The overwhelming and consistent conclusion from evaluations across all these diverse benchmarks is that even the most advanced, state-of-the-art LLMs, including models like GPT-4 and GPT-4o, lag significantly behind human performance. This persistent gap underscores that the limitations of LLMs in temporal reasoning are not superficial but are fundamental, pointing to a deep architectural mismatch between the nature of the models and the nature of the task.

4.3 Augmenting LLMs: Frameworks for Temporal Competence

Given that the inherent architecture of LLMs is ill-suited for formal reasoning, the most promising path forward involves creating hybrid systems that augment LLMs with external, structured reasoning capabilities. This approach leverages the LLM for what it does best—understanding and generating natural language—while offloading the tasks it struggles with to more appropriate computational tools.

Several powerful augmentation frameworks have emerged:

• Reasoning over Latent Representations: The TG-LLM framework is a prime example of this approach. Instead of having the LLM reason directly over unstructured text, it is first fine-tuned to perform a translation task: converting the natural language context into a structured Temporal Graph (TG). This graph serves as a latent representation of the temporal information. In a second step, the LLM is prompted to perform chain-of-thought reasoning over this explicit, structured graph to answer the question. This two-step process has been shown to improve the model's ability to generalize its reasoning skills.

• Neuro-Symbolic Execution: This paradigm treats the LLM as a "programmer." For a task requiring precise calculation or logical deduction, the LLM is prompted to generate a piece of code (e.g., in Python) or a formal query (e.g., in SQL) that, when executed, will solve the problem. For example, to answer a question about the duration between two dates, the LLM would generate a Python script that uses the datetime library to perform the calculation. The script is then executed by a reliable symbolic engine (the Python interpreter), and the result is used to formulate the final answer. This neuro-symbolic pipeline effectively outsources the formal reasoning, dramatically improving accuracy and reliability.

• Agentic Frameworks with External Memory: To overcome the limitations of static knowledge and temporal drift, LLMs can be embedded within agentic frameworks. In such a system, an agent can interact with a dynamic corpus of documents (e.g., an updating news feed or a versioned wiki). Instead of relying on its outdated parametric memory, the agent can use tools to incrementally build and update an external, structured memory, such as a Temporal Knowledge Graph. At inference time, when asked a question, the agent can retrieve temporally-filtered, relevant information from this external memory to construct an accurate, up-to-date answer. This transforms the LLM from a static knowledge base into a dynamic, learning reasoner.

These augmentation strategies all point to the same conclusion: the future of temporal reasoning with LLMs is not about building a bigger black box, but about building a smarter, more transparent system of systems, where the linguistic intelligence of the LLM is tightly integrated with the logical and computational rigor of symbolic tools.

Part III: The Future of Temporal Intelligence

The journey through the architectures of temporal reasoning and the challenges of agency has revealed a clear trajectory: a move away from isolated, single-paradigm solutions towards integrated, hybrid systems. The future of Temporal Intelligence lies in continuing and deepening this integration, creating systems that can build and inhabit a dynamic, internal world model. This concept represents the ultimate synthesis of the components discussed throughout this report. It envisions an AI with a reasoning architecture (Part I) that is inherently causal and can be continuously updated by an agent (Part II) through rich, multi-modal perception of a world that unfolds in continuous time. Such a system would mark a profound shift from the reactive, pattern-matching intelligence of today to a proactive, simulating intelligence capable of genuine foresight. The frontiers of research in continuous-time models, multi-modal reasoning, and world models are not independent threads but are converging on this single, powerful vision: an AI that doesn't just process data about the world, but computes possible worlds to navigate the actual one.

Section 5: Frontiers of Temporal Cognition

As we look to the horizon, several key research frontiers are pushing the boundaries of what is possible in machine-based temporal understanding. These areas challenge the fundamental assumptions of current models and point toward a future where AI's relationship with time is far more nuanced, adaptive, and powerful.

5.1 Beyond Discrete Ticks: Continuous-Time Models

A foundational, yet often overlooked, limitation of most modern AI architectures, including RNNs and Transformers, is that they process time in discrete steps. This is an artificial constraint imposed for computational convenience, but it does not reflect the continuous nature of real-world physical processes. A new class of models is emerging that embraces continuity, leading to systems that are more naturally suited to dynamic and irregularly-sampled environments.

Liquid Neural Networks (LNNs) are a prominent example of this new wave. Inspired by the neuroscience of small organisms, LNNs are a class of continuous-time neural models whose behavior is described by a system of continuous differential equations. This formulation makes them inherently causal (the future state depends only on the present, not the future) and highly adaptable to changing conditions and data that arrives at non-uniform intervals. They have shown particular promise in tasks requiring robust decision-making in environments with complex temporal dynamics, such as modeling disease pathways from temporal knowledge graphs.

A major challenge for these ODE-based networks, however, is the high computational cost and potential for numerical instability associated with the iterative numerical solvers required to compute their state over time. To address this, researchers have developed Closed-form Continuous-depth Networks (CfCs). By applying the theory of linear ODEs, this work provides an analytical, closed-form solution to the underlying differential equations of a specific class of continuous neural networks. This breakthrough eliminates the need for a numerical solver at inference time, resulting in models that are one to five orders of magnitude faster to train and run, without sacrificing the expressive power and adaptive benefits of the continuous-time formulation.

Pushing this concept even further are novel architectures like the Continuous Thought Machine (CTM). The CTM represents a radical departure from conventional sequential models. Instead of processing data along a sequence inherent in the input (like words in a sentence), the CTM operates along a self-generated, internal timeline over which "thought" can unfold. It uses private, neuron-level models and represents information through the degree of synchronization between pairs of neurons over its internal time dimension. This decoupled internal timeline allows for a new form of sequential reasoning that is not tied to the structure of the input data, opening up new possibilities for flexible and adaptive computation.

5.2 A Richer Reality: Multi-Modal Temporal Reasoning

A true understanding of real-world events is rarely derived from a single source of information. A news article describing a political protest is informative, but its meaning is vastly enriched when combined with video footage, audio recordings, and social media commentary from the event. Therefore, a critical frontier for Temporal Intelligence is multi-modal reasoning—the ability to integrate and reason over information from diverse modalities like text, images, video, and audio to form a holistic understanding of an event as it unfolds in time.

This task has proven to be exceptionally difficult. Current Video-LLMs, which are designed for this purpose, often fail at long-term temporal reasoning. This is because many architectures entangle the low-level task of perception (identifying objects and actions in a frame) with the high-level task of temporal reasoning into a single, monolithic network. This makes it difficult for them to model long-term dependencies, understand causality, or track the progression of events over extended periods. New benchmarks like TemporalVQA have starkly illustrated these failures; even state-of-the-art models like GPT-4o perform worse than random guessing on the simple task of determining the correct temporal order of two consecutive video frames.

Emerging solutions are beginning to tackle these challenges by rethinking the architectural approach. One promising direction is to decouple perception from reasoning. In this paradigm, a specialized vision model is used for frame-by-frame analysis, and its output is then fed into a separate module dedicated to temporal reasoning. Another innovative technique involves using visual prompting. Here, an off-the-shelf object tracking model is used to identify corresponding objects across different video frames. This correspondence information is then visualized directly on the frames (e.g., by drawing bounding boxes and connecting lines) before they are fed to the MLLM. This simple, training-free method has been shown to substantially boost the spatial-temporal reasoning capabilities of models like GPT-4V, as it provides an explicit visual cue about how the scene is changing over time.116 These approaches, along with the development of more challenging and comprehensive benchmarks, are paving the way for multi-modal systems that can perceive and reason about the world with much greater temporal fidelity.

5.3 The End Game: World Models and Simulated Futures

The ultimate expression of Temporal Intelligence, and arguably a key component of general intelligence, is the concept of a "world model". Championed by leading researchers at institutions like DeepMind and IBM, a world model is a learned, internal simulation of an environment that captures its essential properties: its physical structure, its temporal dynamics, and its underlying causal relationships. Humans naturally use world models; we constantly run mental simulations to predict the consequences of our actions, to plan for the future, and to reason about hypothetical scenarios. The goal of this research frontier is to endow AI agents with this same powerful capability.

World model-based agents, such as DeepMind's DreamerV3, represent a paradigm shift in reinforcement learning. Instead of learning a policy through slow and costly trial-and-error in the real environment, the agent first learns a model of the environment itself. DreamerV3 does this using a sophisticated recurrent neural network (specifically, a Recurrent State-Space Model or RSSM) that learns to compress sensory inputs (like pixels from a screen) into a compact latent representation and then predict how this latent state will evolve over time in response to actions. Once this world model is learned, the agent can learn highly effective behaviors entirely within its own simulated "dream" world. It can rapidly explore thousands of possible action sequences in imagination, identify those that lead to high rewards, and then transfer this learned policy to the real environment. This process is vastly more data-efficient and safer than traditional RL. The success of DreamerV3 in learning to solve complex tasks like collecting diamonds in Minecraft from scratch, without any human demonstrations, highlights the immense power of this approach.

The potential applications of world models are transformative and extend far beyond games.

• Robotics and Autonomous Vehicles: World models allow robots to plan complex movements and interactions in a safe, simulated space before attempting them in the physical world. This dramatically accelerates learning, reduces the risk of costly damage, and is a critical technology for industrial assembly, warehouse logistics, and autonomous navigation.

• Science and Medicine: In complex domains like biology, world models can create holistic, multi-scale simulations of biological systems. By unifying data from genomics, proteomics, and clinical records, these models can help researchers predict the effects of gene perturbations, classify disease states, and model patient responses to different therapies, accelerating scientific discovery.

• Enterprise and Industry: Businesses can use world models to create sophisticated "digital twins" of their entire operations. These virtual simulations of factories, supply chains, or retail networks allow companies to test significant changes—like reconfiguring a warehouse layout, introducing new robotic automation, or responding to a supply disruption—without interrupting their real-world business, enabling safer and more effective strategic planning.

By learning to simulate and predict, an agent with a world model moves beyond simple reaction and begins to exhibit genuine foresight. This is the hallmark of the calculating mind—an intelligence that constructs and explores possible futures to act more wisely in the present.

Conclusion: The Thinking Machine's Sense of Time

The journey from simple time-series forecasting to the frontier of world models reveals that teaching machines to understand time is one of the most profound and multifaceted challenges in artificial intelligence. It is not a single problem but a constellation of interconnected challenges that cut across the entire field, pushing the limits of data representation, learning algorithms, and agent architectures. Synthesizing the research landscape, several grand challenges emerge as central to future progress:

• Data Representation: The field continues to search for the ideal representation of temporal information—one that is structured enough to support rigorous logical reasoning, yet flexible and learnable enough to be extracted from noisy, real-world data. The path from temporal logic to TKGs and now to neuro-symbolic hybrids illustrates this ongoing quest for a representation that is both sound and robust.

• Causality vs. Correlation: A fundamental paradigm shift is underway, moving the entire field away from purely correlational, predictive models toward systems that can understand and reason about underlying causal mechanisms. This is the difference between forecasting and foresight, and it is essential for building AI that can be trusted with high-stakes decisions.

• Non-Stationarity and Adaptation: The real world is not static. A core challenge is building systems that are not brittle and do not fail when the environment changes. This requires a move away from the stationarity assumption that underpins much of classical machine learning and toward agents that can continuously learn, adapt, and retain knowledge in dynamic settings.

• Scalability and Efficiency: As AI models are applied to ever-larger datasets and more complex problems—from modeling global supply chains to simulating biological systems—the need for computationally efficient and scalable algorithms becomes paramount. The development of methods like closed-form continuous networks and causal pretraining are vital steps in this direction.

• Explainability and Trust: As AI agents become more autonomous and are given greater decision-making responsibility, ensuring that their reasoning processes are transparent, interpretable, and aligned with human values is not just a technical requirement but an ethical imperative. The inherent explainability of symbolic and causal models is a key reason for their resurgence and integration into modern AI systems.

Returning to the opening theme, the "clockwork mind" is a passive observer of time's linear passage. It is a machine that ticks. The "calculating mind," endowed with the capabilities explored in this report, is an active participant in the temporal world. It is a machine that thinks. It does not simply know what time it is; it understands what time means in the context of its environment, its goals, and the causal fabric of reality. It constructs a rich, dynamic, and multi-faceted model of its world. It calculates not just a single future, but a landscape of plausible futures, and uses those calculations to choose its actions in the present. The quest to build this calculating mind—to teach a machine to truly understand time—is not merely a specialized sub-problem of AI. It is, in essence, the very journey towards a more general, more capable, and more intelligent artificial intelligence. The path forward lies not in a single, monolithic breakthrough, but in the thoughtful and creative synthesis of the diverse fields explored herein: the structure of knowledge graphs, the rigor of symbolic logic, the learning power of neural networks, the deep insights of causal inference, and the goal-directed agency of reinforcement learning.

Works cited

1. Processor clock speeds are not how fast AIs think - LessWrong, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/adadYCPFAhNqDA5Ye/processor-clock-speeds-are-not-how-fast-ais-think

2. Time Reimagined: How AI Challenges and Redefines Our Understanding of Temporal Reality - Reflections.live, accessed June 20, 2025, https://reflections.live/articles/14918/time-reimagined-how-ai-challenges-and-redefines-our-understanding-of-temporal-reality-article-by-rohan-mathew-16253-lxolm82j.html

3. AI models can't tell time or read a calendar, study reveals | Live Science, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.livescience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-models-cant-tell-time-or-read-a-calendar-study-reveals

4. The Chinese Room Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), accessed June 20, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

5. AI Time Series Forecasting: A Beginners' Guide - DataCamp, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.datacamp.com/blog/ai-time-series-forecasting

6. How is AI being applied to time series forecasting? - IBM Research, accessed June 20, 2025, https://research.ibm.com/blog/AI-time-series-forecasting

7. AI and Time Series Data: Harnessing Temporal Insights in a Digital Age - DEV Community, accessed June 20, 2025, https://dev.to/jennythomas498/ai-and-time-series-data-harnessing-temporal-insights-in-a-digital-age-4ea3

8. AI in Time Series Forecasting: Transforming Predictive Analytics - Pickl.AI, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.pickl.ai/blog/ai-time-series-forecasting/

9. What are the limitations of time series analysis? - Zilliz Vector Database, accessed June 20, 2025, https://zilliz.com/ai-faq/what-are-the-limitations-of-time-series-analysis

10. Complex systems and the technology of variability analysis - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed June 20, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1065053/

11. Common Challenges in Time Series Financial Forecasting - Phoenix Strategy Group, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.phoenixstrategy.group/blog/common-challenges-in-time-series-financial-forecasting

12. How 'causal' AI can improve your decision-making - IMD Business School, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.imd.org/ibyimd/artificial-intelligence/how-causal-ai-can-improve-your-decision-making/

13. Temporal Intelligence | AI Agents That Understand & Anticipate Time ..., accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.klover.ai/service/temporal_intelligence_ai/

14. Time Consciousness: Temporal Intelligence: Harnessing Temporal Intelligence for Strategic Planning - FasterCapital, accessed June 20, 2025, https://fastercapital.com/content/Time-Consciousness--Temporal-Intelligence---Harnessing-Temporal-Intelligence-for-Strategic-Planning.html

15. View of Temporal Intelligence in AI-Enhanced Cyber Forensics ..., accessed June 20, 2025, https://journal.esrgroups.org/jes/article/view/659/682

16. Temporal Intelligence in AI-Enhanced Cyber Forensics using Time-Based Analysis for Proactive Threat Detection - Journal of Electrical Systems, accessed June 20, 2025, https://journal.esrgroups.org/jes/article/download/659/682/1132

17. (PDF) Temporal Intelligence in AI-Enhanced Cyber Forensics using Time-Based Analysis for Proactive Threat Detection - ResearchGate, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378496093_Temporal_Intelligence_in_AI-Enhanced_Cyber_Forensics_using_Time-Based_Analysis_for_Proactive_Threat_Detection

18. From AI insights to AI-driven decisions: Accelerate innovation with temporal intelligence - KX, accessed June 20, 2025, https://kx.com/blog/ai-driven-decisions-temporal-intelligence-kx/

19. AI Reasoning in Deep Learning Era: From Symbolic AI to Neural–Symbolic AI - MDPI, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/11/1707

20. [2009.03420] A Hybrid Neuro-Symbolic Approach for Complex Event Processing - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03420

21. A Survey on Temporal Knowledge Graph: Representation ... - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.04782

22. Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion: A Survey, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08236

23. Neuro-Symbolic methods for Trustworthy AI: a systematic review - Neurosymbolic Artificial Intelligence, accessed June 20, 2025, https://neurosymbolic-ai-journal.com/system/files/nai-paper-726.pdf

24. A Study on Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: Healthcare Perspectives - ResearchGate, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390143322_A_Study_on_Neuro-Symbolic_Artificial_Intelligence_Healthcare_Perspectives

25. Test of Time: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Temporal Reasoning - OpenReview, accessed June 20, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=44CoQe6VCq

26. Part II Temporal Reasoning - James Pustejovsky, accessed June 20, 2025, https://jamespusto.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Gaiz-Part-II.pdf

27. Temporal Reasoning and Problem Solving - DTIC, accessed June 20, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA248457.pdf

28. Neuro-Symbolic Spatio-Temporal Reasoning, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www2.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/wtm/publications/2023/LSAAKW23a/2211.15566_Dup.pdf

29. Reasoning Mechanisms in AI - GeeksforGeeks, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/artificial-intelligence/reasoning-mechanisms-in-ai/

30. A Survey on Temporal Knowledge Graph: Representation Learning and Applications - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2403.04782v1

31. [2403.04782] A Survey on Temporal Knowledge Graph: Representation Learning and Applications - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.04782

32. Predicting future disorders via temporal knowledge graphs and medical ontologies - UCL Discovery - University College London, accessed June 20, 2025, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10191256/1/Predicting_Future_Disorders_via_Temporal_Knowledge_Graphs_and_Medical_Ontologies.pdf

33. Temporal Graph Learning Reading Group - McGill School Of Computer Science, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~shuang43/rg.html

34. Qingsong Wen's Homepage - AI for Time Series - Google Sites, accessed June 20, 2025, https://sites.google.com/site/qingsongwen8/ai-for-time-series

35. Temporal Graph Learning Reading Group - Shenyang Huang, accessed June 20, 2025, https://shenyanghuang.github.io/rg.html

36. Predicting Future Disorders via Temporal Knowledge Graphs and Medical Ontologies | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379925812_Predicting_Future_Disorders_via_Temporal_Knowledge_Graphs_and_Medical_Ontologies

37. Learning to Sample and Aggregate: Few-shot Reasoning over Temporal Knowledge Graphs - NIPS, accessed June 20, 2025, https://papers.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/6b295b08549c0441914e391651423477-Paper-Conference.pdf

38. Temporal Knowledge Graph Question Answering: A Survey - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2406.14191v1

39. Predicting Future Disorders via Temporal Knowledge Graphs and Medical Ontologies, accessed June 20, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38635388/

40. Advances in Neuro Symbolic Reasoning (and Learning), accessed June 20, 2025, https://neurosymbolic.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2023/02/Shakarian_AAAI_tutorial.pdf

41. Causal AI - Bridging the Gap Between Correlation and Causation, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.alwin.io/causal-ai

42. Unlocking AI's Full Potential with Privacy-Preserving Causal Modeling - BeeKeeperAI, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.beekeeperai.com/blog/107206-unlocking-ai-full-potential-privacy-preserving-causal-modeling

43. What is temporal reasoning in AI? - Milvus, accessed June 20, 2025, https://milvus.io/ai-quick-reference/what-is-temporal-reasoning-in-ai

44. Temporal Reasoning: Definition & Techniques | Vaia, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.vaia.com/en-us/explanations/engineering/artificial-intelligence-engineering/temporal-reasoning/

45. Temporal Logic-Based Model Checking for Autonomous Systems - International Journal of Engineering Inventions, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.ijeijournal.com/papers/Vol13-Issue8/13088290.pdf

46. Neuro-symbolic Models for Interpretable Time Series Classification using Temporal Logic Description (2022) | Ruixuan Yan | 5 Citations - SciSpace, accessed June 20, 2025, https://scispace.com/papers/neuro-symbolic-models-for-interpretable-time-series-3i2gnifx

47. Neurosymbolic Integration of Linear Temporal Logic in Non Symbolic Domains⋆ - IRIS, accessed June 20, 2025, https://iris.uniroma1.it/retrieve/1f4cd94f-4487-4de1-83b7-5f59c3f94556/Umili_postprint_Neurosymbolic_2023.pdf

48. Towards Cognitive AI Systems: a Survey and Prospective on ... - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.01040

49. A Neuro-Symbolic Approach to Structured Event Recognition - DROPS, accessed June 20, 2025, https://drops.dagstuhl.de/storage/00lipics/lipics-vol206-time2021/LIPIcs.TIME.2021.11/LIPIcs.TIME.2021.11.pdf

50. A Neuro-Symbolic Approach for Real-World Event Recognition from Weak Supervision - DROPS, accessed June 20, 2025, https://drops.dagstuhl.de/storage/00lipics/lipics-vol247-time2022/LIPIcs.TIME.2022.12/LIPIcs.TIME.2022.12.pdf

51. TReMu: Towards Neuro-Symbolic Temporal Reasoning for LLM-Agents with Memory in Multi-Session Dialogues - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2502.01630v1

52. KLay: Accelerating Arithmetic Circuits for Neurosymbolic AI - OpenReview, accessed June 20, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=Zes7Wyif8G

53. Beyond Correlation – The Causal Revolution - Curious About, accessed June 20, 2025, https://martinwhitworth.com/2025/06/05/beyond-correlation-the-causal-revolution/

54. Correlation vs. Causality in AI: A Guide for Investors, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.alphanome.ai/post/correlation-vs-causality-in-ai-a-guide-for-investors

55. Why Smarter Marketers Use Causal Analysis to Maximize Campaign Results - Swydo, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.swydo.com/blog/causal-analysis/

56. Beyond Correlation: The Future of AI Requires True Understanding - Anshad Ameenza, accessed June 20, 2025, https://anshadameenza.com/blog/technology/beyond-correlation-future-of-ai/

57. (PDF) Causal Discovery from Temporal Data - ResearchGate, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372922914_Causal_Discovery_from_Temporal_Data

58. A Survey on Causal Discovery Methods for I.I.D. and Time Series Data - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2303.15027v4

59. Causal Inference for Time series Analysis: Problems, Methods and ..., accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.05829

60. Causal Discovery in Financial Markets: A Framework for Nonstationary Time-Series Data, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2312.17375v2

61. Embracing the black box: Heading towards foundation models for causal discovery from time series data - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2402.09305v1

62. A Practical Approach to Causal Inference over Time - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2410.10502v1

63. Causal Inference for Banking, Finance, and Insurance – A Survey - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16427

64. What are AI agents? Definition, examples, and types | Google Cloud, accessed June 20, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/discover/what-are-ai-agents

65. The Evolution of AI Agents: From Chatbots to Autonomous Decision-Makers - Litslink, accessed June 20, 2025, https://litslink.com/blog/evolution-of-ai-agents

66. The Evolution of AI Agents: Transforming AI Systems from Monolithic Models to Intelligent Compounds - Business Compass LLC®, accessed June 20, 2025, https://businesscompassllc.com/the-evolution-of-ai-agents-transforming-ai-systems-from-monolithic-models-to-intelligent-compounds/

67. Autonomous AI Agents: The Evolution of Artificial Intelligence - Shelf.io, accessed June 20, 2025, https://shelf.io/blog/the-evolution-of-ai-introducing-autonomous-ai-agents/

68. The rise of autonomous agents: What enterprise leaders need to ..., accessed June 20, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws-insights/the-rise-of-autonomous-agents-what-enterprise-leaders-need-to-know-about-the-next-wave-of-ai/

69. Reinforcement Learning: A Survey - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/9605103

70. Tempo Adaptation in Non-stationary Reinforcement Learning - NIPS, accessed June 20, 2025, https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/1a0672689a693e0764f93f900488b3d9-Paper-Conference.pdf

71. Reinforcement Learning in Non-Stationary Environments, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03970

72. [2005.10619] A Survey of Reinforcement Learning Algorithms for Dynamically Varying Environments - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10619

73. libo-huang/Awesome-Causal-Reinforcement-Learning - GitHub, accessed June 20, 2025, https://github.com/libo-huang/Awesome-Causal-Reinforcement-Learning

74. [2302.02182] Online Reinforcement Learning in Non-Stationary Context-Driven Environments - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02182

75. Graph-enhanced Large Language Models in Asynchronous Plan Reasoning - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2402.02805v2

76. 3 Asynchronous Collaboration Models for Distributed Teams - Mem.ai, accessed June 20, 2025, https://get.mem.ai/blog/3-asynchronous-collaboration-models-for-distributed-teams

77. AI Agent Visualization Review Asynchronous Multi-Agent Simulation, accessed June 20, 2025, http://www.deepnlp.org/blog/ai-agent-visualization-review-asynchronous-multi-agent-simulation

78. How to use reasoning models with Azure AI Foundry Models - Learn Microsoft, accessed June 20, 2025, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-foundry/model-inference/how-to/use-chat-reasoning

79. The Rise of Reasoning AI: Moving Beyond Generative Models - Datahub Analytics, accessed June 20, 2025, https://datahubanalytics.com/the-rise-of-reasoning-ai-moving-beyond-generative-models/

80. Back to the Future: Towards Explainable Temporal Reasoning with Large Language Models, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380539033_Back_to_the_Future_Towards_Explainable_Temporal_Reasoning_with_Large_Language_Models

81. Can LLMs Generate Good Stories? Insights and Challenges from a Narrative Planning Perspective - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2506.10161v1

82. Large Language Models Can Learn Temporal Reasoning | Request ..., accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384218773_Large_Language_Models_Can_Learn_Temporal_Reasoning

83. Large Language Models Can Learn Temporal Reasoning - ACL ..., accessed June 20, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.563/

84. Visual narrative exploration using LLMs and Monte Carlo Tree Search - ACL Anthology, accessed June 20, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/2025.wnu-1.16.pdf

85. Narrative Understanding with Large Language Models | The Alan ..., accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.turing.ac.uk/work-turing/research-and-funding-calls/ai-fellowships/yulan-he-project

86. Do Language Models Understand Time? - OpenReview, accessed June 20, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=GBWUkGxx1a

87. Do Language Models Understand Time? - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2412.13845v1

88. TRANSIENTTABLES: Evaluating LLMs' Reasoning on Temporally Evolving Semi-structured Tables - ACL Anthology, accessed June 20, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-long.332.pdf

89. Question Answering under Temporal Conflict: Evaluating and Organizing Evolving Knowledge with LLMs - ResearchGate, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392531380_Question_Answering_under_Temporal_Conflict_Evaluating_and_Organizing_Evolving_Knowledge_with_LLMs

90. Is Your LLM Outdated? A Deep Look at Temporal Generalization - ACL Anthology, accessed June 20, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-long.381.pdf

91. Formulation Comparison for Timeline Construction using LLMs - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2403.00990v1

92. Document Data Extraction in 2025: LLMs vs OCRs - Vellum AI, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.vellum.ai/blog/document-data-extraction-in-2025-llms-vs-ocrs

93. Storyline Extraction of Document-Level Events Using Large Language Models, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=137720

94. TIME: A Multi-level Benchmark for Temporal Reasoning of LLMs in Real-World Scenarios, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391877101_TIME_A_Multi-level_Benchmark_for_Temporal_Reasoning_of_LLMs_in_Real-World_Scenarios

95. TIME: A Multi-level Benchmark for Temporal Reasoning of LLMs in Real-World Scenarios, accessed June 20, 2025, https://huggingface.co/papers/2505.12891

96. TIME: A Multi-level Benchmark for Temporal Reasoning of LLMs in Real-World Scenarios, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12891

97. [Literature Review] TIME: A Multi-level Benchmark for Temporal Reasoning of LLMs in Real-World Scenarios - Moonlight | AI Colleague for Research Papers, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/time-a-multi-level-benchmark-for-temporal-reasoning-of-llms-in-real-world-scenarios

98. TRAM: Benchmarking Temporal Reasoning for Large Language Models - ACL Anthology, accessed June 20, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-acl.382/

99. TRAM: Benchmarking Temporal Reasoning for Large Language Models - ACL Anthology, accessed June 20, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-acl.382.pdf

100. TEST OF TIME: A BENCHMARK FOR EVALUATING LLMS ON TEMPORAL REASONING - OpenReview, accessed June 20, 2025, https://openreview.net/pdf?id=44CoQe6VCq

101. LLM-Symbolic Integration for Robust Temporal Tabular Reasoning - OpenReview, accessed June 20, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=VtBayUHFCH

102. Enhancing Temporal Understanding in LLMs for Semi-structured Tables - Publications, accessed June 20, 2025, https://cogcomp.seas.upenn.edu/page/publication_view/1057

103. On the Temporal Question-Answering Capabilities of Large Language Models Over Anonymized Data | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390671770_On_the_Temporal_Question-Answering_Capabilities_of_Large_Language_Models_Over_Anonymized_Data

104. Enhancing Temporal Understanding in LLMs for Semi-structured Tables - ACL Anthology, accessed June 20, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-naacl.278/

105. [Literature Review] Large Language Models Can Learn Temporal Reasoning, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/large-language-models-can-learn-temporal-reasoning

106. Do Language Models Have a Common Sense regarding Time? Revisiting Temporal Commonsense Reasoning in the Era of Large Language Models | OpenReview, accessed June 20, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=akJUrevmwI¬eId=ePnIMbD5tE

107. (PDF) Can Multimodal LLMs do Visual Temporal Understanding and Reasoning? The answer is No! - ResearchGate, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388232699_Can_Multimodal_LLMs_do_Visual_Temporal_Understanding_and_Reasoning_The_answer_is_No

108. [2401.06853] Large Language Models Can Learn Temporal Reasoning - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06853

109. Robust temporal knowledge inference via pathway snapshots with liquid neural network, accessed June 20, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40349883/

110. Closed-form continuous-time neural networks - MIT, accessed June 20, 2025, https://cap.csail.mit.edu/sites/default/files/research-pdfs/Closed-form%20continuous-time%20neural%20networks.pdf

111. Continuous Thought Machines - Sakana AI, accessed June 20, 2025, https://pub.sakana.ai/ctm/

112. Perception, Reason, Think, and Plan: A Survey on Large Multimodal Reasoning Models, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2505.04921v1

113. UTAustin-SwarmLab/Neuro-Symbolic-Video-Search-Temporal-Logic - GitHub, accessed June 20, 2025, https://github.com/UTAustin-SwarmLab/Neuro-Symbolic-Video-Search-Temporal-Logic

114. Neuro Symbolic Video Search with Temporal Logic - Minkyu Choi's Personal Webpage, accessed June 20, 2025, https://minkyuchoi-07.github.io/2024/03/16/neuro-symbolic-video-search/

115. TemporalVQA: Can Multimodal LLMs do Visual Temporal Understanding and Reasoning? The answer is No! - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2501.10674v1

116. Coarse Correspondences Boost Spatial-Temporal Reasoning in Multimodal Language Model - CVF Open Access, accessed June 20, 2025, https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/CVPR2025/papers/Liu_Coarse_Correspondences_Boost_Spatial-Temporal_Reasoning_in_Multimodal_Language_Model_CVPR_2025_paper.pdf

117. Topic 35: What are World Models?, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.turingpost.com/p/topic-35-what-are-world-models

118. World Models in Artificial Intelligence: Sensing, Learning, and Reasoning Like a Child - arXiv, accessed June 20, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.15168

119. World models help AI learn what five-year-olds know about gravity | IBM, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/news/cosmos-ai-world-models

120. Applications of Spatial and Temporal Reasoning in Cognitive Robotics - CEUR-WS.org, accessed June 20, 2025, https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3827/keynote2.pdf