Human Capital, Not Model Benchmarks, Predicts Hybrid Intelligence in Forecasting

Determining whether published scientific findings can successfully be replicated is a long-standing challenge in the empirical sciences. Existing approaches for replicability assessment typically rely either on human judgment, i.e., creative assembly of human experts, or on machine learning models trained on paper content metadata. While both approaches have demonstrated value, each also has important limitations. Human forecasts can be influenced by cognitive biases and narrow exposure to the research literature, while automated assessments often struggle to capture contextual cues and subtle signals of credibility. In this paper, we examine a hybrid approach. Specifically, we introduce a hybrid prediction market in which algorithmic agents trade alongside human participants to jointly estimate the likelihood that a published scientific finding will be corroborated via the outcome of a controlled replication study. Agents are trained on outcomes from hundreds of prior replication studies while human participants contribute domain knowledge through real-time trading. We evaluate this hybrid approach through multiple live experiments involving participants from different academic disciplines and compare its performance to artificial-only and human-only baselines. Our results show that, except for a few cases, hybrid markets match or outperform artificial prediction markets, producing more accurate and reliable replication forecasts.

Machine learning models are often intended to augment rather than replace human decision makers, by providing information that is complementary to human judgement. Yet, in practice, human decision makers routinely fail to realize such complementary gains, even when models provide useful signal. In this work, we study how asymmetric information about the quality of information available to a human decision maker vs. an AI impacts the ability of a decision maker to extract complementary value from AI predictions. We show that a key factor is the error correlation structure between human and AI predictions. In particular, when the AI's prediction errors are \textit{negatively correlated} with those of the human, the decision maker can construct robust strategies which guarantee improvements in expected utility. We empirically investigate whether these conditions for complementarity arise in practice, using real-world forecasting benchmarks.

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.