Evaluating Strategic Reasoning in Forecasting Agents

Forecasting real-world events requires language-model agents to reason under uncertainty from incomplete, time-bounded information. Yet evaluating whether agents genuinely forecast requires more than final-answer accuracy: a model may be correct by recalling memorized training facts, citing fabricated evidence, or producing an unsupported causal story. We present WorldReasoner, an evaluation framework for temporally valid event forecasting. Each task gives an agent a resolved forecasting question, a simulated forecast date, and access only to evidence available before that date; after resolution, the framework scores the submitted probability, cited evidence, and optional causal event graph. WorldReasoner reports three complementary axes: outcome quality against resolved answers, evidence quality over cited sources, and reasoning quality against post-resolution hindsight graphs. The benchmark is built by an agentic construction pipeline that generates forecasting questions, collects time-stamped evidence, and builds hindsight reference graphs at scale, yielding 345 resolved tasks derived from 14,141 articles with graphs covering 8,087 extracted events. Across six controlled agent settings, temporally valid retrieval is the strongest driver of outcome accuracy; causal graph construction improves key-event recovery; and correct graph-enabled forecasts are more strongly grounded in key events and relevant sources, yet agents still struggle to convert grounded evidence into calibrated probabilities.

Evaluating the true forecasting ability of AI agents requires environments that are resistant to environments resistant to overfitting, free from centralized trust, and grounded in incentive-compatible scoring. Existing benchmarks either rely on static datasets vulnerable to training-data contamination, or measure trading PnL -- a metric conflating predictive accuracy with timing, sizing, and risk appetite. We introduce Foresight Arena, the first permissionless, on-chain benchmark for evaluating AI forecasting agents on real-world prediction markets. Agents submit probabilistic forecasts on binary Polymarket markets via a commit-reveal protocol enforced by Solidity smart contracts on Polygon PoS; outcomes are resolved trustlessly through the Gnosis Conditional Token Framework. Performance is measured by the Brier Score and a novel Alpha Score -- proper scoring rules that incentivize honest probability reporting and isolate predictive edge over market consensus. We provide a formal analysis: closed-form variance for per-market Alpha, the connection to Murphy's classical Brier decomposition, and a power analysis characterizing the number of rounds required to reliably distinguish agents of different skill levels. We show that detecting a true edge of $α^* = 0.02$ at 80% power requires approximately 350 resolved binary predictions (50 rounds of 7 markets), while $α^* = 0.01$ requires four times more. We complement these analytical results with a deterministic, seed-controlled simulation study calibrated to literature-reported Brier-score ranges, illustrating how Murphy decomposition distinguishes well-calibrated agents from market-tracking agents that fail through reduced resolution. Live results from the deployed benchmark will be reported in a future revision. All smart contracts and evaluation infrastructure are open-source.

Decision-makers routinely rely on expert judgments accompanied by written explanations, yet explanation quality is difficult to measure at scale. Forecasting tournaments offer a natural testing ground: probabilistic judgments are paired with natural-language rationales and scored against realized outcomes. We introduce Explanation Quality Markers (EQMs), a set of sixty theory-guided reasoning patterns scored by large language models (LLMs). In a pre-registered analysis of over 55,000 forecast-rationale pairs from a multiyear forecasting tournament, EQMs predict accuracy at both the forecast and forecaster levels, consistently outperforming pre-LLM text-analysis methods. More than 90% of statistically significant pattern-level EQM-accuracy correlations match our directional hypotheses. The signal is asymmetric: EQMs identify likely underperformers more reliably than they distinguish the very best forecasters. Benchmarked against traditional indicators of forecasting skill, EQMs are the strongest predictor at the forecast level and competitive at the forecaster level, though weaker than prior accuracy. Human ratings of rationale quality are less consistently correlated with accuracy and place disproportionate weight on rationale length. Results transfer to an independent forecasting study. EQMs provide a scalable, interpretable method for extracting judgment-relevant information from written explanations.