← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-short.65 · 记录 #1
Temporal Leakage in Search-Engine Date-Filtered Web Retrieval: A Retrospective Forecasting Case Study
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:44
摘要
Search-engine date filters are widely used to enforce pre-cutoff retrieval in retrospective evaluations of search-augmented forecasters. We show this approach is unreliable across two major search engines: auditing Google Search’s before: filter and DuckDuckGo’s date-range filter, we find that at least one retrieved page contains major post-cutoff leakage for 71% of questions on Google and 81% on DuckDuckGo, and the answer is directly revealed for 41% and 55%, respectively. Using gpt-oss-120b to forecast with these leaky documents, we demonstrate inflated prediction accuracy (Brier score 0.10 vs. 0.24 with leak-free documents). We characterize recurring leakage mechanisms, including updated articles, related-content modules, unreliable metadata, and absence-based signals, and argue that date-restricted search on these engines is insufficient for credible retrospective evaluation. We recommend stronger retrieval safeguards or evaluation on frozen, time-stamped web snapshots.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Temporal Leakage in Search-Engine Date-Filtered Web Retrieval: A Retrospective Forecasting Case Study
Search-engine date filters are widely used to enforce pre-cutoff retrieval in retrospective evaluations of search-augmented forecasters. We show this approach is unreliable across two major search engines: auditing Google Search’s before: filter and DuckDuckGo’s date-range filter, we find that at least one retrieved page contains major post-cutoff leakage for 71% of questions on Google and 81% on DuckDuckGo, and the answer is directly revealed for 41% and 55%, respectively. Using gpt-oss-120b to forecast with these leaky documents, we demonstrate inflated prediction accuracy (Brier score 0.10 vs. 0.24 with leak-free documents). We characterize recurring leakage mechanisms, including updated articles, related-content modules, unreliable metadata, and absence-based signals, and argue that date-restricted search on these engines is insufficient for credible retrospective evaluation. We recommend stronger retrieval safeguards or evaluation on frozen, time-stamped web snapshots.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗