When Can We Trust Early Warnings? Leakage-Excluded Early Outcome Prediction from LMS Interaction Logs

Data leakage -- contamination of a model with information unavailable at baseline -- is the dominant reproducibility failure in machine-learning-based science, yet detection tools require training code, external data, or domain expertise. None operates on the artifact an auditor most often holds: the model's output. We ask what can be decided about leakage from predictions and outcomes alone. We give a decision-theoretic framework in which leakage diagnostics are functionals of the predicted-risk/outcome law, parameterized by a threshold-weighting linked to proper scoring rules and decision-curve analysis. We prove a sharp impossibility: a recalibrated leak matching an honest model's calibration and discrimination is indistinguishable from honest performance by \emph{any} function of the predictions, so the broad class is detectable only against an externally supplied ceiling on achievable discrimination. We then prove what leakage cannot hide: a near-deterministic subgroup -- the signature of a near-label leak -- produces a sustained unit-purity head that no legitimate predictor of a non-deterministic outcome can manufacture, yielding a prior-free test. These results organize leakage into a trichotomy -- miscalibrated, broad-calibrated, and deterministic -- each with a matched detector and failure mode. We validate on UK Biobank using time-windowed comorbidity leakage with known, graded severity, measuring a detection floor of $Δ\cstar \approx 0.007$ on this endpoint, below which residual leakage is undetectable from output and too small to alter conclusions. The numerical floor is cohort- and endpoint-specific; the structural lesson is general: output-only detection fails where residual leakage is indistinguishable from an honestly stronger predictor. The test returns a verdict on a prediction vector in under a second on commodity hardware.

Backtesting large language models on historical events requires reasoning exclusively from information available before a specified cutoff date. Yet models routinely leak post-cutoff knowledge from pre-training into their reasoning, inflating apparent accuracy and undermining evaluation validity. Prompt-based constraints fail when suppressed content is causally related to the prediction, and knowledge unlearning cannot address this problem because temporal compliance is instance-specific: the same fact may be legitimate evidence for one cutoff date and a violation for another. Rather than erasing knowledge, the model must learn temporal discipline: selecting evidence conditioned on each instance's cutoff date. We propose TEMPO (Temporal Enforcement via Mode-separated Policy Optimization), which trains this discipline via two contributions: (1) a two-mode reward where a leakage mode drives post-cutoff claims to zero as a hard prerequisite before a performance mode optimizes task performance; and (2) a GRPO-based training pipeline that enables the model to discover temporally valid reasoning strategies. We prove that training monotonically decreases leakage, converges to the leak-free optimum, and improves task performance once compliance is achieved. On three prediction tasks and two models, TEMPO reduces leakage from 213% to 0.63.7% across all conditions, with task performance improving 6~13% where strong pre-cutoff signals exist and maintained where the prediction task is inherently difficult from valid information alone.

Current Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is constrained by its reliance on post-hoc judicial materials, increasing the likelihood that models perform retrospective classification rather than true forecasting. This paper empirically investigates shortcut learning in this context by studying claim-level outcome prediction in UK Employment Tribunal (UKET) decisions. Using a corpus of 33,158 individual claims, we predict outcomes from claim texts and LLM-extracted case summaries, evaluating models ranging from interpretable TF-IDF-based classifiers to black-box LLMs. While headline predictive performance figures appear strong, we demonstrate that such performance in LJP systems trained on post-hoc judicial text can be driven by the retrospective nature of the source material. Stratifying the test data by human judgments of leakage reveals that performance increases where outcome-revealing cues are embedded in the narrative. Moreover, a model trained on just the 4% of features identified as leakage achieves high performance, outperforming human experts. These findings substantiate concerns that LJP performance may be exaggerated by linguistic artefacts. Yet this vulnerability is not fatal to the research agenda. Instead, post-hoc judgments might be treated as potentially contaminated texts, requiring active auditing. Retraining models after masking leakage features results in only a negligible reduction in Macro-F1. Hence, while models will opportunistically exploit shortcuts when available, they remain capable of extracting useful predictive signals when these artefacts are removed.