How often do Answers Change? Estimating Recency Requirements in Question Answering

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is often used to address outdated knowledge by providing external evidence. But retrieval helps only when that evidence is still valid. We identify a temporal alignment failure, stale-document poisoning, in which outdated evidence makes a model wrong despite answering correctly without retrieval. We construct a benchmark of 317 verified knowledge reversals across medicine, law, software, and platform policy, grounded in dated official sources. Across 12 models, recent medical reversals are harder than long-established ones. More importantly, outdated retrieval flips 30% of Llama and 37% of Qwen answers even without instructions to trust the document; explicit follow instructions raise these rates to 66% and 75%. Across four open models and four domains, poisoning ranges from 17-91%, while matched up-to-date evidence is followed in 97-100% of trials. To isolate temporal applicability, we keep the historical evidence unchanged across 50 reversals and vary only the evaluation date. A clear pattern emerges: dates alone produce only modest adaptation, but when models are explicitly told when the old evidence stops applying, the larger models switch to the appropriate answer almost perfectly. Causal interventions confirm that this validity information directly shapes the final decision. The same internal components also support broader comparison tasks, suggesting that temporal applicability can recruit a general reasoning mechanism used for other comparisons. Finally, a fixed recency-aware hybrid re-ranker reduces poisoning by 4.6-10.0 points when dates are accurate, with gains that depend on reliable temporal metadata. Reliable RAG therefore requires selective trust: models must determine not only what retrieved evidence says, but whether it still applies.

A collection date records when a source revision was acquired, not when its contents changed. Can assigning this metadata redirect temporal question answering despite unchanged evidence? Swapping the question day and following day between two revisions lowers later-reference exact match (EM) by 37.6-51.4 percentage points across five open-weight LLMs on 595 Wikipedia pages, replicated on 128 disjoint pages. Previous-day swaps retain 29.0-39.6-point losses on 497 pages. Seven prompt variants, including explicit ignore-collection instructions and archived-revision provenance, retain the effect. Fictional answers and English month-name question dates show that remembered answers and identical date strings are unnecessary. Matched thinking reduces Qwen3.5's penalty from 30.1 to 11.1 points, while native reasoners vary. Two API LLMs show small Wikipedia swap effects and rarely shift to earlier answers on fictional records. Large swap-induced losses concentrate around the question date; swaps between distant dates have much smaller effects. Adding fields containing one observed acquisition date lowers EM relative to omission in three of five LLMs after correction. The diagnostic isolates metadata effects from changing evidence or missing the relevant revision, and provides a practical audit for temporal QA inputs.

Evolving documents, such as laws, tax codes, and software documentation, are amended, replaced, and sometimes reverted over time, so a question has different correct answers at different dates. In contrast to encyclopedic knowledge, where an old fact is simply overwritten, an amendment is itself an official text that states what it replaces and when it takes effect, and the earlier version stays correct for its validity period. The central challenge is therefore version resolution, that is, identifying the version in force on the queried date. Existing temporal QA datasets treat time only as an annotation, so version resolution stays untested. We present TIDE, an expert-verified benchmark of 3,050 QA pairs over 644 official customs instruments issued between 1969 and 2025 by the Government of Bangladesh, covering eight task types over deeply code-mixed documents that are heterogeneous in layout and dated in two calendars. In addition, we evaluate nine recent LLMs under a single protocol across parametric, gold-context, and retrieval access, scored by a three-judge LLM council with a hard date gate separating correct meaning from correct time. The best macro-averaged accuracy is only 68.5%. Resolving a version from an implicit date reaches 59.7%, and detecting that the supplied version does not govern the query reaches only 26.7%. Models are more likely to find correct versions than to reject incorrect ones, and they tend to follow a confident parametric answer over the supplied authoritative text. All code and data are available at https://github.com/icsetepa44/TIDE