Large language models (LLMs) struggle with ex-ante reasoning—making inferences or predictions without access to future information. Even under explicit temporal cutoffs, they often rely on internalized post-cutoff knowledge. To systematically evaluate this issue, we introduce a benchmark that assesses LLMs’ ex-ante inference ability across four tasks: stock prediction, question answering, Wikipedia event generation, and scientific publication generation. We quantify temporal leakage using a leakage rate metric, which measures models’ reliance on future information beyond cutoff timestamps, and a quality measure that evaluates task performance. Experimental results show that LLMs frequently violate temporal constraints across tasks, revealing persistent challenges in ex-ante reasoning. Our benchmark serves as a rigorous testbed for studying temporal reasoning in time-sensitive contexts and provides complete datasets, results, and evaluation resources to support future research on improving temporal consistency in modern LLMs.

We introduce Agentic Economic Modeling (AEM), a framework that aligns synthetic LLM choices with small-sample human evidence for reliable econometric inference. AEM first generates task-conditioned synthetic choices via LLMs, then learns a bias-correction mapping from task features and raw LLM choices to human-aligned choices, upon which standard econometric estimators perform inference to recover demand elasticities and treatment effects. We validate AEM in two experiments. In a large scale conjoint study with millions of observations, using only 10% of the original data to fit the correction model lowers the error of the demand-parameter estimates, while uncorrected LLM choices even increase the errors. In a regional field experiment, a mixture model calibrated on 10% of geographic regions estimates an out-of-domain treatment effect of -65±10 bps, closely matching the full human experiment (-60±8 bps). Under time-wise extrapolation, training with only day-one human data yields -24 bps (95% CI: [-26, -22], p<1e-5), improving over the human-only day-one baseline (-17 bps, 95% CI: [-43, +9], p=0.2049). These results demonstrate AEM’s potential to improve RCT efficiency and establish a foundation method for LLM-based counterfactual generation.

Reddit is home to a broad spectrum of political activity, and users signal their political affiliations in multiple ways—from self-declarations to community participation. Frequently, computational studies have treated political users as a single bloc, both in developing models to infer political leaning and in studying political behavior. Here, we test this assumption of political users and show that commonly-used political-inference models do not generalize, indicating heterogeneous types of political users. The models remain imprecise at best for most users, regardless of which sources of data or methods are used. Across a 14-year longitudinal analysis, we demonstrate that the choice in definition of a political user has significant implications for behavioral analysis. Controlling for multiple factors, political users are more toxic on the platform and inter-party interactions are even more toxic—but not all political users behave this way. Last, we identify a subset of political users who repeatedly flip affiliations, showing that these users are the most controversial of all, acting as provocateurs by more frequently bringing up politics, and are more likely to be banned, suspended, or deleted.

Document-level text simplification often deletes some sentences besides performing lexical, grammatical or structural simplification to reduce text complexity. In this work, we focus on sentence deletions for text simplification and use a news genre-specific functional discourse structure, which categorizes sentences based on their contents and their function roles in telling a news story, for predicting sentence deletion. We incorporate sentence categories into a neural net model in two ways for predicting sentence deletions, either as additional features or by jointly predicting sentence deletions and sentence categories. Experimental results using human-annotated data show that incorporating the functional structure improves the recall of sentence deletion prediction by 6.5% and 10.7% respectively using the two methods, and improves the overall F1-score by 3.6% and 4.3% respectively.