PreprintCited by 1Stock Market Forecasting MethodsTopic ModelingFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies

DatedGPT: Preventing Lookahead Bias in Large Language Models with Time-Aware Pretraining

Open access
Yan, Yutong, Tang, Raphael, Gao, Zhenyu, Jiang, Wenxi, Lu, Yao·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Large language models pretrained on internet-scale data risk lookahead bias in forecasting tasks, as they may have already seen the true outcome during training. To address this, we present DatedGPT, a family of twelve 1.3B-parameter language models trained from scratch on approximately 100 billion tokens each with strict annual data cutoffs spanning 2013 to 2024, together with DatedInstruct, an instruction dataset grounded in each year's documents to prevent leakage during post-training. The models are competitive with open models of similar scale, and perplexity-based probing confirms that each model's knowledge is bounded by its cutoff year. On stock return prediction over 61,000 firm-day news headlines, DatedGPT-instruct achieves an annualised Sharpe ratio of $3.20$ under the lookahead-bias-free setup. Lookahead-biased models, whose training data covers the outcome period, add a lookahead premium of $26.4$ b.p. per standard deviation, significant at the 1% level. The series thus enables direct analysis of lookahead bias in financial forecasting. We provide an interactive web demo that allows users to query and compare responses from models across different cutoff years, available at www.datedgpt.com.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2603.11838

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Explicit temporal constraints can prevent future information leakage.

    “Their approach demonstrates that explicit temporal constraints can prevent future information leakage.”

    From Look-Ahead-Bench: a Standardized Benchmark of Look-ahead Bias in Point-in-Time LLMs for Finance (2026) · cites this paper as Yan & Tang, 2026

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Loubna Ben Allal, Anton Lozhkov, Elie Bak- ouch, Gabriel Martín Blázquez, Guilherme Penedo, Lewis Tunstall, Andrés Marafioti, Hynek Kydlíček, Agustín Piqueres Lajarín, Vaibhav Srivastav, and 1 others. 2025. Smollm2: When smol goes big-data- centric training of a small language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02737. · arXiv
  2. Stella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley, Kyle O'Brien, Eric Hal- lahan, Mohammad Aflah Khan, Shivanshu Purohit, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Edward Raff, and 1 others. 2023. Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2397-2430.
  3. PMLR.
  4. Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Jianfeng Gao, Yejin Choi, and 1 others. 2020. Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol- ume 34, pages 7432-7439.
  5. Faeze Brahman, Sachin Kumar, Vidhisha Balachan- dran, Pradeep Dasigi, Valentina Pyatkin, Abhilasha Ravichander, Sarah Wiegreffe, Nouha Dziri, Khyathi Chandu, Jack Hessel, and 1 others. 2024. The art of saying no: Contextual noncompliance in language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:49706-49748.
  6. J Leland Bybee. 2023. The ghost in the machine: Gen- erating beliefs with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02823. · arXiv
  7. Jeffrey Cheng, Marc Marone, Orion Weller, Dawn Lawrie, Daniel Khashabi, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2024. Dated data: Tracing knowledge cutoffs in large language models. First Conference on Lan- guage Modeling.
  8. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebas- tian Gehrmann, and 1 others. 2023. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. Journal of ma- chine learning research, 24(240):1-113.
  9. Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question an- swering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457. · arXiv
  10. Joseph Engelberg, Asaf Manela, William Mullins, and Luka Vulicevic. 2025. Entity neutering. Available at SSRN.
  11. Zhenyu Gao, Wenxi Jiang, and Yutong Yan. 2025. A test of lookahead bias in llm forecasts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23847. · arXiv
  12. Paul Glasserman and Caden Lin. 2023. Assessing look-ahead bias in stock return predictions gener- ated by gpt sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17322. · arXiv
  13. Anne Lundgaard Hansen and Sophia Kazinnik. 2024. Can chatgpt decipher fedspeak? Available at SSRN 4399406.
  14. Songrun He, Linying Lv, Asaf Manela, and Jimmy Wu. 2025. Chronologically consistent large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21206. · arXiv
  15. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2020. Measuring massive multitask language under- standing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300. · arXiv
  16. Nathan Hu, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Meta-learning online adaptation of language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4418-4432.
  17. Manish Jha, Jialin Qian, Michael Weber, and Baozhong Yang. 2024. Chatgpt and corporate policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17933. · arXiv
  18. Jungo Kasai, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Akari Asai, Xinyan Yu, Dragomir Radev, Noah A Smith, Yejin Choi, Kentaro Inui, and 1 others. 2023. Real- time qa: What's the answer right now? Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:49025- 49043.
  19. Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th annual meet- ing of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: long papers), pages 3214-3252.
  20. Alejandro Lopez-Lira and Yuehua Tang. 2023. Can chatgpt forecast stock price movements? return pre- dictability and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07619. · arXiv
  21. Guilherme Penedo, Hynek Kydlíček, Anton Lozhkov, Margaret Mitchell, Colin A Raffel, Leandro Von Werra, Thomas Wolf, and 1 others. 2024. The fineweb datasets: Decanting the web for the finest text data at scale. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:30811-30849.
  22. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, and 1 others. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learn- ers. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
  23. Suproteem K Sarkar. 2024. Storieslm: A family of lan- guage models with time-indexed training data. Avail- able at SSRN 4881024.
  24. Suproteem K Sarkar and Keyon Vafa. 2024. Lookahead bias in pretrained language models. Available at SSRN 4754678.
  25. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, and 1 others. 2023. Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. · arXiv
  26. Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions. In Proceed- ings of the 61st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: long papers), pages 13484-13508.
  27. Maurice Weber, Dan Fu, Quentin Anthony, Yonatan Oren, Shane Adams, Anton Alexandrov, Xiaozhong Lyu, Huu Nguyen, Xiaozhe Yao, Virginia Adams, and 1 others. 2024. Redpajama: an open dataset for training large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 37:116462-116492.
  28. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  29. Ke Wu, Baozhong Yang, Zhenkun Ying, and Dexin Zhou. 2025. Anonymization and information loss. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15364. · arXiv
  30. Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. Wizardlm: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex in- structions. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
  31. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Proceed- ings of the 57th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 4791-4800.
  32. Aohan Zeng, Xiao Liu, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Hanyu Lai, Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Yifan Xu, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Xia, and 1 others. 2022. Glm- 130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02414. · arXiv
  33. Peiyuan Zhang, Guangtao Zeng, Tianduo Wang, and Wei Lu. 2024. Tinyllama: An open-source small language model. Preprint, arXiv:2401.02385. · arXiv
  34. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher De- wan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, and 1 others. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. · arXiv
  35. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, and 1 others. 2023. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 36:46595-46623.
  36. Jeffrey Zhou, Tianjian Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Siddhartha Brahma, Sujoy Basu, Yi Luan, Denny Zhou, and Le Hou. 2023. Instruction-following evaluation for large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2311.07911. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yan, Y., Tang, R., Gao, Z., Jiang, W., & Lu, Y.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7135240633
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Stock Market Forecasting Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Markets and Investment Strategies
Keywords
stock return prediction, financial forecasting, training data leakage, instruction dataset, knowledge cutoff, large language models, news headlines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review