Artificial General Intelligence Forecasting and Scenario Analysis: State of the Field, Methodological Gaps, and Strategic Implications

LLM agents are increasingly used for live forecasting, where they retrieve up-to-date information and produce estimates for unresolved future events. However, current agentic forecasting often relies on implicit narrative aggregation: agents collect evidence, discuss it in prose, and often assign a probability without an explicit update path from evidence to forecast. This limits both forecasting accuracy and auditability. We propose AuditForecast, an agentic scaffold for structured probabilistic forecasting. AuditForecast first anchors the forecast with a suitable quantitative baseline model, uses model-guided data retrieval to derive a base probability, and then applies situational factor updates outside the model's scope through mechanical aggregation in odds space. This turns forecasting from a prose-based judgment into a structured process with explicit intermediate objects. Across multiple live forecasting benchmarks, AuditForecast improves forecasting accuracy and calibration relative to strong agentic baselines, surpasses market-implied references in several settings, and outperforms substantially more expensive deep-research agents while remaining Pareto-dominant in the cost--accuracy tradeoff. Beyond performance gains, AuditForecast produces an auditable forecasting report that makes forecast construction explicit and supports systematic post hoc analysis.

Quantitative forecasts of frontier artificial intelligence often connect dated targets to trends in benchmark scores, training compute, release time, or expert belief. This paper audits whether the public measurement record supports those connections before another trend is fitted. I construct a frozen, event-centric record through 12 August 2026 with 62 selected systems, 12 versioned benchmarks, seven capability or impact criteria, 144 graded events, 27 source records, and 408 typed relations. The record is an audit sample, not a census. Only seven systems jointly observe estimated training compute and a METR 50 percent task horizon. Training compute is absent for 19 of 27 closed systems, including every selected closed release from 2026, while none of the 35 open-weight systems has a METR horizon observation. Benchmark succession creates a second break: a seven-system link from METR Time Horizon 1.0 to 1.1 has a log-scale slope of 1.206 (95 percent CI 1.021 to 1.390), whereas a six-system MMLU to MMLU-Pro comparison appears shift-like under logit and probit links but not under linear or logarithmic links. The observed bridges have about 80 percent power only for slope departures near 25 percent. Provenance is concentrated: 52 of 71 substantive quantitative events, or 73.2 percent, come from one measurement programme, and 76.1 percent are laboratory releases. A review of 56 methodological and empirical sources identifies 16 complementary measurement directions spanning resources, inference budgets, reliability, agentic work, safety, human preference, field outcomes, and forecast backtesting. No direction supplies a replacement scalar. The result is not that frontier AI forecasting is impossible, but that a defensible dated forecast is a claim about a versioned measurement system with explicit joins, protocols, links, and source dependence, not merely a fitted curve or calendar date.

Large language models (LLMs) now support forecasting systems that combine language-based reasoning with temporal data, evidence retrieval, external tools, and iterative prediction. We investigate LLM-based forecasting agents, meaning systems in which a language model contributes to a scored prediction about a future or currently unobserved target. We organize architectures into three groups. Standalone LLM workflows operate on encoded time series or event context. Tool- and retrieval-augmented agents incorporate external evidence. Hybrid systems pair LLMs with statistical or foundation models. We then review training methods and evaluation protocols. We examine negative as well as positive evidence, including sensitivity to small input perturbations, ablations in which the LLM component does not improve accuracy, and benchmark gains that may reflect contamination instead of temporal reasoning. We cover applications in finance, weather, health, energy, and operations, and we summarize the benchmarks and datasets used for evaluation. The evidence indicates that measurement is a central limitation. Future work requires calibration under distribution shift, contamination-resistant live evaluation, explicit reporting of cost and accuracy together, and methods for handling feedback between deployed forecasts and the outcomes being forecast.