Forecasters often know an event is imminent but not the shape, size, or timing of its effect. We introduce Event Signature Transfer (EST), a training-free, model-agnostic operator that turns a completed past event into an explicit forecast scenario. EST removes a source event's own trend and seasonality, then scales and retimes the remaining event signature onto a native forecast, preserving the forecast's linked structure and reducing to it exactly at zero strength. Because it reads only output quantiles, EST applies to any quantile forecaster, with no training, no model internals, at transfer time. Across twelve real episodes and ten synthetic scenarios on Chronos-2, TimesFM-2.5 and Toto-2.0, manually configured EST reduces real-episode WQL by 21.7-90% in-sample. On Chronos-2, it leads eleven of twelve matched comparisons against covariate conditioning, activation editing and raw replay. The operator builds a scenario; it does not estimate its likelihood.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Event Signature Transfer Framework. Step 1 : on a scale where relative changes are comparable, remove the source’s usual trend and seasonal pattern, leaving the event signature. Step 2 : a frozen TSFM produces the native target forecast Q0 . Step 3 : choose strength and timing, apply the signature to every quantile of Q0 , and map back to the target’s scale, giving the steered output.
Figure 2: Source, target, and result. (a) An authored dip preserves the target’s native rhythm. (b) The May 2009 Yampa signature steers the May 2023 forecast toward the observed rise (85.6% in-sample WQL reduction). Gold denotes the source event and projected background.
Episode
Covariate
t2t-C2 †
Replay
EST
Election attention
+14.1
0.0
+56.4
+72.7
Gasoline / Harvey
-1.4
+72.9
+80.4
+88.6
Refinery / Harvey
+2.7
+10.3
-140.3
+70.2
Thanksgiving travel
+11.1
+27.9
+15.3
+54.4
Oil / OPEC
-13.4
+40.4
+24.1
+61.5
NYC smoke
+2.4
+2.1
+29.7
+78.7
Table 1: Chronos-2 in-sample WQL skill (%) relative to the untouched Q0 forecast. Higher is better; zero matches Q0 . Shading marks best and runner-up . Constructions and per-backbone results: Appendix C . † time2time-inspired adaptation.
Figure 3: The 2020 election response steers the 2024 election forecast. Forecast starts 22 October, before the scheduled 5 November election. Logarithmic axes; native Q0 dashed, steered medians solid. Independent in-sample scenarios reduce WQL by 72.7/64.1/67.9% for Chronos-2/TimesFM/Toto (Tables A6 – A8 ).
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Link
G(v)
Target change
Within-step preservation
Log
logv
Multiply by exp(e)
Quantile ratios
Relative
v/s , s>0
Add se
Raw differences
Logit
logb−vv−a
Multiply odds by exp(e)
Log-odds differences
Appendix
Table A1: The link determines what a transferred change means. Source and target may use different links.
Episode and measurement
Analogue and rationale
Election attention Wikimedia pageviews
2020 election article for 2024. A known election date motivates a concentrated attention pulse.
Ike (2008) for Harvey (2017): refinery outage and recovery, opposite in direction to gasoline [ 17 ] .
Thanksgiving travel TSA checkpoint counts
Thanksgiving 2023 for 2024: the published holiday calendar motivates a trough and rebound.
Oil / OPEC EIA/FRED DCOILWTICO
November 2014 no-cut meeting for December 2015: a sustained price-decline scenario; the policy outcome is uncertain.
NYC smoke EPA AirData, NYC
July 2021 transported smoke for June 2023: a pollution pulse, with weather and source-mixture confounds [ 10 ] .
Appendix
Table A2 : Real measurements and the response each analogue is intended to supply. Provider names link to data sources.
Episode
Source event
Target forecast
Nx/Ny
E/H
Election attention
2020-10-20 2020-11-20
2024-10-22 2024-11-22
28/512
32/32
Gasoline / Harvey
2005-08-29 2005-09-19
2017-08-28 2017-09-18
156/256
4/4
Refinery / Harvey
2008-09-12 2008-11-28
2017-08-25 2017-11-10
156/260
12/12
Thanksgiving travel
2023-11-10 2023-12-11
2024-11-15 2024-12-16
42/336
32/32
Oil / OPEC
2014-11-28 2015-01-02
2015-12-04 2016-01-08
225/225
24/24
NYC smoke
2021-07-19 2021-07-26
2023-06-05 2023-06-12
413/512
8/8
Appendix
Table A3 : Inclusive event and forecast dates. Nx/Ny : source/target history lengths; E/H : source-event/forecast lengths. Histories end immediately before their respective windows. Oil and tax steps are observed business/trading days; the other clocks are daily or weekly as supplied.
Episode
Source / target link
P
Trend
k
τ
sx/sy
Election attention
log / log
7
linear
1
0.04
–
Gasoline / Harvey
log / log
52
linear
1
0.04
–
Refinery / Harvey
log / logit
52
linear
3
0.04
–
Thanksgiving travel
log / log
7
linear
1
0.04
–
Oil / OPEC
log / log
0
linear
3
0.04
–
NYC smoke
log / log
0
linear
1
0.04
–
Appendix
Table A4 : Default source extraction. TimesFM ILI instead uses the optional background in Appendix C.1 . P : seasonal period (zero omits it); k : smoothing width; τ : shape tolerance; sx/sy : relative-link scales in original units. No explicit knots or caps are used.
Figure A1 : Twelve source response shapes. Grey is the raw background-adjusted residual; gold is the extracted signature. The virtual zero anchor is at step −1 . Axes are in each episode's source-link units and have independent scales. These are source responses, not target truth or causal effects. ILI shows the default signature used by Chronos-2 and Toto; the optional TimesFM background is described in Appendix C.1 .
Scenario
Shape
by
ay/ax
w/ℓ/D
Downward crash
crash
0
0/0
1/0/32
Upward rise
rise
-0.002
0/0
1.2/0/32
Downward transient shock and recovery
down spike
0
0/0
0.8/0/32
Upward transient surge and recovery
up spike
0
0/0
1.1/0/32
Crash with the target’s weekly rhythm retained
crash
0.0005
0.1/0
0.9/0/32
Surge with the target’s weekly rhythm retained
up spike
0
0.12/0
1/0/32
Appendix
Table A5 : Authored synthetic data and scenario controls. by is target slope, ay/ax the target/source seasonal amplitudes. w/ℓ/D gives strength/delay/duration.
Episode
Covariate
t2t-C2 †
Replay
EST
Election attention
+14.1
0.0
+56.4
+72.7
Gasoline / Harvey
-1.4
+72.9
+80.4
+88.6
Refinery / Harvey
+2.7
+10.3
-140.3
+70.2
Thanksgiving travel
+11.1
+27.9
+15.3
+54.4
Oil / OPEC
-13.4
+40.4
+24.1
+61.5
NYC smoke
+2.4
+2.1
+29.7
+78.7
Appendix
Table A6 : Chronos-2: in-sample WQL skill (%). Best and runner-up are shaded within each row. The native forecast Q0 has zero skill. † time2time-inspired adaptation.
Episode
Replay
EST
Election attention
+52.5
+64.1
Gasoline / Harvey
+79.1
+84.8
Refinery / Harvey
-103.9
+67.9
Thanksgiving travel
+19.7
+46.5
Oil / OPEC
+42.4
+68.6
NYC smoke
+24.7
+77.5
Appendix
Table A7 : TimesFM 2.5: in-sample WQL skill (%). Best and runner-up are shaded within each row. The native forecast Q0 has zero skill. Covariate and activation interfaces were not evaluated.
Episode
Replay
EST
Election attention
+52.3
+67.9
Gasoline / Harvey
+80.6
+85.6
Refinery / Harvey
-113.5
+68.9
Thanksgiving travel
+19.5
+49.1
Oil / OPEC
+45.0
+65.8
NYC smoke
+27.4
+74.5
Appendix
Table A8 : Toto 2.0: in-sample WQL skill (%). Best and runner-up are shaded within each row. The native forecast Q0 has zero skill. Covariate and activation interfaces were not evaluated.
Figure A2 : Complete real forecast horizons on all three backbones. Blue dashed: Q0 ; green solid: EST; black: observations. Shading: q10–q90. Each model uses its own reported scenario.
Figure A3 : Complete real forecast horizons on all three backbones. Blue dashed: Q0 ; green solid: EST; black: observations. Shading: q10–q90. Each model uses its own reported scenario.
Figure A4 : Complete real forecast horizons on all three backbones. Blue dashed: Q0 ; green solid: EST; black: observations. Shading: q10–q90. Each model uses its own reported scenario.
Figure A5 : Synthetic scenarios: source, signature and full target history above; Chronos-2, TimesFM and Toto forecasts below. No target future truth or accuracy score is defined.
Figure A6 : Synthetic scenarios: source, signature and full target history above; Chronos-2, TimesFM and Toto forecasts below. No target future truth or accuracy score is defined.
Figure A7 : Synthetic scenarios: source, signature and full target history above; Chronos-2, TimesFM and Toto forecasts below. No target future truth or accuracy score is defined.
Figure A8 : Synthetic scenarios: source, signature and full target history above; Chronos-2, TimesFM and Toto forecasts below. No target future truth or accuracy score is defined.
Figure A9 : Synthetic scenarios: source, signature and full target history above; Chronos-2, TimesFM and Toto forecasts below. No target future truth or accuracy score is defined.
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.
Yizhou Chi, Eric Chamoun, Zifeng Ding +1
Department of Computer Science and Technology University of Cambridge
We introduce Forecast-Dojo, a replayable environment for benchmarking and training LLM forecasting agents. It combines resolved prediction-market questions with dated news, allowing agents to research an event and revisit their predictions at successive historical dates. The same tasks and tools support repeated evaluation, collection of training interactions, and feedback from recorded outcomes without waiting for new events to resolve. Forecast-Dojo contains 1,568 Polymarket events, split by time into training and evaluation periods, and 18.8M dated news articles. In an evaluation of 12 models, research tools lower Brier score for all 12. Forecasts also improve as events unfold, with the largest gains at steps where more newly dated evidence is recorded. Every model still trails historical market forecasts in both Brier score and accuracy. A belief notebook carried between dates lowers research cost but does not consistently improve forecast quality. Beyond evaluation, Forecast-Dojo provides interaction trajectories and outcome feedback for agent learning, with supervised fine-tuning as a proof of concept.
Liqin Ye, Haorui Wang, Fardin Ahmed +8
Georgia Institute of Technology · Amazon · University of Florida
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.