dorsal/arxiv
View SchemaThe Imperfective Paradox in Large Language Models
| Authors | Bolei Ma, Yusuke Miyao |
|---|---|
| Categories | |
| ArXiv ID | 2601.09373vv1 |
| URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09373 |
| License | http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ |
Abstract
Do Large Language Models (LLMs) genuinely grasp the compositional semantics of events, or do they rely on surface-level probabilistic heuristics? We investigate the Imperfective Paradox, a logical phenomenon where the past progressive aspect entails event realization for activities (e.g., running $\to$ ran) but not for accomplishments (e.g., building $\nrightarrow$ built). We introduce ImperfectiveNLI, a diagnostic dataset designed to probe this distinction across diverse semantic classes. Evaluating state-of-the-art open-weight models, we uncover a pervasive Teleological Bias: models systematically hallucinate completion for goal-oriented events, often overriding explicit textual negation. Representational analyses show that while internal embeddings often distinguish process from result, inference decisions are dominated by strong priors about goal attainment. We further find that prompting-based interventions reduce hallucinated completions but also increase incorrect rejections of valid entailments. Our findings suggest that current LLMs lack structural aspectual awareness, operating as predictive narrative engines rather than faithful logical reasoners.
{
"annotation_id": "4a601795-e563-4ac9-9113-3d9ebfb629aa",
"date_created": "2026-02-17T05:53:19.900000Z",
"date_modified": "2026-02-17T05:53:19.900000Z",
"file_hash": "efcc26ddc464288cf655d0d933960dc1521dfd4a0b49d331c3561541b1ac97ea",
"private": false,
"record": {
"abstract": "Do Large Language Models (LLMs) genuinely grasp the compositional semantics of events, or do they rely on surface-level probabilistic heuristics? We investigate the Imperfective Paradox, a logical phenomenon where the past progressive aspect entails event realization for activities (e.g., running $\\to$ ran) but not for accomplishments (e.g., building $\\nrightarrow$ built). We introduce ImperfectiveNLI, a diagnostic dataset designed to probe this distinction across diverse semantic classes. Evaluating state-of-the-art open-weight models, we uncover a pervasive Teleological Bias: models systematically hallucinate completion for goal-oriented events, often overriding explicit textual negation. Representational analyses show that while internal embeddings often distinguish process from result, inference decisions are dominated by strong priors about goal attainment. We further find that prompting-based interventions reduce hallucinated completions but also increase incorrect rejections of valid entailments. Our findings suggest that current LLMs lack structural aspectual awareness, operating as predictive narrative engines rather than faithful logical reasoners.",
"arxiv_id": "2601.09373",
"authors": [
"Bolei Ma",
"Yusuke Miyao"
],
"categories": [
"cs.CL"
],
"license": "http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/",
"title": "The Imperfective Paradox in Large Language Models",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09373",
"version": "v1"
},
"schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
"source": {
"execution_id": "303882e4-7ae7-4061-b3e0-2bde4138efc7",
"id": "arXiv Dataset",
"type": "Model",
"variant": "snapshot-2026-01-17",
"version": "0.1.0"
},
"user_id": 1000002
}