# The Imperfective Paradox Is Not Necessarily in Large Language Models: A Benchmark Failure Before a Model Failure

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.25005 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.25005/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [mT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11934/) (2020)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03350/) (2022)
- [Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.01007/) (2019)
- [Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.02324/) (2018)
- [Documenting Large Webtext Corpora: A Case Study on the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08758/) (2021)
- [COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic Interpretation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.05465/) (2020)
- [Lifting the Curse of Multilinguality by Pre-training Modular Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.06266/) (2022)
- [The CoT Collection: Improving Zero-shot and Few-shot Learning of Language Models via Chain-of-Thought Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14045/) (2023)
- [Evaluating the Impact of Model Scale for Compositional Generalization in Semantic Parsing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12253/) (2022)
- [CoRE: Condition-based Reasoning for Identifying Outcome Variance in Complex Events](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01253/) (2025)
- [The Imperfective Paradox in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.09373/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The imperfective paradox provides a useful test of compositional semantic analysis. Recent work constructs an NLI benchmark and reports that models frequently infer completed telic events from progressive descriptions, attributing this behavior to a Teleological Bias. It further argues that prompting interventions cause a Calibration Crisis. We reexamine the benchmark and conclusions and show that it is substantially affected by conceptual and evaluation mis-specifications. We identify three conceptual mis-specifications. In particular, Aspectual Reduction affects the benchmark construction, analysis, experiments, and conclusions. Under a strict NLI standard, 76% of Group A instances do not explicitly rule out culmination. In our native-speaker annotation, 38% of Group A examples and 29% of the Group C examples were judged to permit an alternative interpretation. To control these issues and lexical variation, we construct Lexically Matched Minimal Pairs. At the evaluation level, we formulate event-semantic NLI as a Multi-step Reasoning Problem and assess both intermediate semantic decisions and final predictions. Our results show that models often do not affirm culmination but nevertheless accept the corresponding simple-past hypothesis, a pattern we characterize as Sufficiency Bias. We further show that prompting interventions produce a Decision Shift among labels without reliably improving the underlying semantic understanding and reasoning. Intermediate and oracle-guided analyses identify two additional failure modes: errors in compositional aspectual classification and Surface-form Attraction toward surface-associated answers. Our experiments on Qwen-7B with suitable prompts, GPT-5.4, and Qwen-72B provide initial evidence for the context sensitivity of aspectual classification and suggest that these models can achieve performance comparable to that of human annotators.