# Teaching Large Language Models When Not to Know: Learning Temporal Critique for Ex-Ante Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14636 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.14636/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 42 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 42)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10560/) (2022)
- [Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08207/) (2021)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [Time-LLM: Time Series Forecasting by Reprogramming Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01728/) (2023)
- [Negative Preference Optimization: From Catastrophic Collapse to Effective Unlearning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05868/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Are Zero-Shot Time Series Forecasters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07820/) (2023)
- [Unrolling SGD: Understanding Factors Influencing Machine Unlearning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.13398/) (2021)
- [In-Context Unlearning: Language Models as Few Shot Unlearners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07579/) (2023)
- [ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07738/) (2024)
- [Time Travel in LLMs: Tracing Data Contamination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08493/) (2023)
- [Free Process Rewards without Process Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.01981/) (2024)
- [Towards Safer Large Language Models through Machine Unlearning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10058/) (2024)
- [StreamingQA: A Benchmark for Adaptation to New Knowledge over Time in Question Answering Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11388/) (2022)
- [Can Large Language Models Really Improve by Self-critiquing Their Own Plans?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08118/) (2023)
- [Critique-out-Loud Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.11791/) (2024)
- [Test of Time: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Temporal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09170/) (2024)
- [A Survey of Large Language Models in Finance (FinLLMs)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.02315/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) often fail to reason under temporal cutoffs: when prompted to answer from the standpoint of an earlier time, they exploit knowledge that became available only later. We study this failure through the lens of ex-ante reasoning, where a model must rely exclusively on information knowable before a cutoff. Through a systematic analysis of prompt-level interventions, we find that temporal leakage is highly sensitive to cutoff formulation and instruction placement: explicit cutoff statements outperform implicit historical framings, and prefix constraints reduce leakage more effectively than suffix constraints. These findings indicate that prompting can steer models into a temporal frame, but does not endow them with the ability to verify whether a response is temporally admissible. We further argue that supervised fine-tuning is insufficient, since ex-ante correctness is not an intrinsic property of an answer, but a relation between the answer and the cutoff. To address this gap, we propose TCFT, a Temporal Critique Fine-Tuning framework that trains models to acquire cutoff-aware temporal verification. Given a query, a cutoff, and a candidate response, TCFT teaches the model to identify post-cutoff leakage, explain temporal boundary violations, and judge temporal admissibility. Experiments with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct show that TCFT consistently outperforms prompting and SFT baselines, reducing average leakage by 41.89 and 37.79 percentage points, respectively.