mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Your LLM Agents are Temporally Blind: The Misalignment Between Tool Use Decisions and Human Time Perception

arXiv 2510.23853 ↗First posted 27 Oct 2025cs.CLcited by 9

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Tool learning and function calling

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used to interact with and execute tasks in dynamic environments. However, a critical yet overlooked limitation of these agents is that they, by default, assume a stationary context, failing to account for the real-world time elapsed between messages. We refer to this as "temporal blindness". This limitation hinders decisions about when to invoke tools, leading agents to either over-rely on stale context and skip needed tool calls, or under-rely on it and redundantly repeat tool calls. To study this challenge, we constructed TicToc, a diverse dataset of multi-turn user-agent message trajectories across 76 scenarios, spanning dynamic environments with high, medium, and low time sensitivity. We collected human preferences between "calling a tool" and "directly answering" on each sample, and evaluated how well LLM tool-calling decisions align with human preferences under varying amounts of elapsed time. Our analysis reveals that existing models display poor alignment with human temporal perception, with no model achieving a normalized alignment rate better than 65% when given time stamp information. We also show that naive, prompt-based alignment techniques have limited effectiveness for most models, but specific post-training alignment can be a viable way to align multi-turn LLM tool use with human temporal perception. Our data and findings provide a first step toward understanding and mitigating temporal blindness, offering insights to foster the development of more time-aware and human-aligned agents.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 19 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Oct 2025.

Builds on

19 of 46 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025When2Call: When (not) to Call Tools26 Apr
  2. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools9 Feb

Other references · 17

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  4. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
  5. 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,420
  6. 2023Describe, Explain, Plan and Select: Interactive Planning with Large Language Models Enables Open-World Multi-Task Agentscited by 398
  7. 2021Persistent Anti-Muslim Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 377
  8. 2023Large Language Model Alignment: A Surveycited by 243
  9. 2025Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agentscited by 158
  10. 2024Direct Preference Optimization with an Offsetcited by 122
  11. 2024Large Language Models Can Learn Temporal Reasoningcited by 111
  12. 2024Test of Time: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Temporal Reasoningcited by 88
5 more
  1. 2023Artificial intelligence and biological misuse: Differentiating risks of language models and biological design toolscited by 45
  2. 2023TempTabQA: Temporal Question Answering for Semi-Structured Tablescited by 27
  3. 2025TReMu: Towards Neuro-Symbolic Temporal Reasoning for LLM-Agents with Memory in Multi-Session Dialoguescited by 25
  4. 2025Time-R1: Towards Comprehensive Temporal Reasoning in LLMscited by 25
  5. 2025Mitigating Think-Answer Mismatch in LLM Reasoning Through Noise-Aware Advantage Reweightingcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.

9 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Benchmarking LLM Tool-Use in the Wild
  2. 2026The Evolution of Tool Use in LLM Agents: From Single-Tool Call to Multi-Tool Orchestration
  3. 2026ToolMenuBench: Benchmarking Tool-Menu Filtering Strategies for Reliable and Efficient LLM Agents
  4. 2025TRAJECT-Bench:A Trajectory-Aware Benchmark for Evaluating Agentic Tool Use
  5. 2025Tool Preferences in Agentic LLMs are Unreliable
  6. 2025MemTool: Optimizing Short-Term Memory Management for Dynamic Tool Calling in LLM Agent Multi-Turn Conversations
  7. 2026Action-Space Shaping for LLM Agents: Measuring and Mitigating Tool-Schema Bias
  8. 2025The Behavior Gap: Evaluating Zero-shot LLM Agents in Complex Task-Oriented Dialogs