Data-to-text generation tasks often involve processing numerical time-series as input such as financial statistics or meteorological data. Although large language models (LLMs) are a powerful approach to data-to-text, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of how well they actually understand time-series data. We therefore introduce a benchmark with 18 evaluation tasks to assess LLMs’ abilities of interpreting numerical time-series, which are categorized into: 1) event detection—identifying maxima and minima; 2) computation—averaging and summation; 3) pairwise comparison—comparing values over time; and 4) inference—imputation and forecasting. Our experiments reveal five key findings: 1) even state-of-the-art LLMs struggle with complex multi-step reasoning; 2) tasks that require extracting values or performing computations within a specified range of the time-series significantly reduce accuracy; 3) instruction tuning offers inconsistent improvements for numerical interpretation; 4) reasoning-based models outperform standard LLMs in complex numerical tasks; and 5) LLMs perform interpolation better than forecasting. These results establish a clear baseline and serve as a wake-up call for anyone aiming to blend fluent language with trustworthy numeric precision in time-series scenarios.

Large language models (LLMs) have increasingly been applied to automatic programming code generation. This task can be viewed as a language generation task that bridges natural language, human knowledge, and programming logic. However, it remains underexplored in domains that require interaction with hardware devices, such as quantum programming, where human coders write Python code that is executed on a quantum computer. To address this gap, we introduce QCoder Benchmark, an evaluation framework that assesses LLMs on quantum programming with feedback from simulated hardware devices. Our benchmark offers two key features. First, it supports evaluation using a quantum simulator environment beyond conventional Python execution, allowing feedback of domain-specific metrics such as circuit depth, execution time, and error classification, which can be used to guide better generation. Second, it incorporates human-written code submissions collected from real programming contests, enabling both quantitative comparisons and qualitative analyses of LLM outputs against human-written codes. Our experiments reveal that even advanced models like GPT-4o achieve only around 18.97% accuracy, highlighting the difficulty of the benchmark. In contrast, reasoning-based models such as o3 reach up to 78% accuracy, outperforming averaged success rates of human-written codes (39.98%). We release the QCoder Benchmark dataset and public evaluation API to support further research.

Argument Mining (AM) aims to uncover the argumentative structures within a text. Previous methods require several subtasks, such as span identification, component classification, and relation classification. Consequently, these methods need rule-based postprocessing to derive argumentative structures from the output of each subtask. This approach adds to the complexity of the model and expands the search space of the hyperparameters. To address this difficulty, we propose a simple yet strong method based on a text-to-text generation approach using a pretrained encoder-decoder language model. Our method simultaneously generates argumentatively annotated text for spans, components, and relations, eliminating the need for task-specific postprocessing and hyperparameter tuning. Furthermore, because it is a straightforward text-to-text generation method, we can easily adapt our approach to various types of argumentative structures.Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, as it achieves state-of-the-art performance on three different types of benchmark datasets: the Argument-annotated Essays Corpus (AAEC), AbstRCT, and the Cornell eRulemaking Corpus (CDCP).

Demonstration selection, the process of selecting examples used in prompts, plays a critical role in in-context learning. This paper explores demonstration selection methods for data-to-text tasks that involve numerical time series data as inputs.Previously developed demonstration selection methods primarily focus on textual inputs, often relying on embedding similarities of textual tokens to select similar instances from an example bank. However, this approach may not be suitable for numerical time series data.To address this issue, we propose two novel selection methods: (1) sequence similarity-based selection using various similarity measures, and (2) task-specific knowledge-based selection.From our experiments on two benchmark datasets, we found that our proposed models significantly outperform baseline selections and often surpass fine-tuned models. We also found that scale-invariant similarity measures such as Pearson’s correlation work better than scale-variant measures such as Euclidean distance.Manual evaluation by human judges also confirms that our proposed methods outperform conventional methods.

Large language models (LLMs) have been applied to a wide range of data-to-text generation tasks, including tables, graphs, and time-series numerical data-to-text settings. While research on generating prompts for structured data such as tables and graphs is gaining momentum, in-depth investigations into prompting for time-series numerical data are lacking. Therefore, this study explores various input representations, including sequences of tokens and structured formats such as HTML, LaTeX, and Python-style codes. In our experiments, we focus on the task of Market Comment Generation, which involves taking a numerical sequence of stock prices as input and generating a corresponding market comment. Contrary to our expectations, the results show that prompts resembling programming languages yield better outcomes, whereas those similar to natural languages and longer formats, such as HTML and LaTeX, are less effective. Our findings offer insights into creating effective prompts for tasks that generate text from numerical sequences.