LLM Evaluation is a Forecasting Problem

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.

Progress in language model development is often driven by comparative decisions: which architecture to adopt, which pretraining corpus to use, or which training recipe to apply. Making these decisions well requires reliable performance forecasts, yet the two commonly used signals are fundamentally limited. Cross-entropy loss is poorly aligned with downstream capabilities, and direct downstream evaluation is expensive, sparse, and often uninformative at early training stages. Instead, we propose to construct proxy metrics by aggregating token-level statistics, such as entropy, top-k accuracy, and expert token rank, from a candidate model's next token distribution over expert-written solutions. Across three settings, our proxies consistently outperform loss- and compute-based baselines: 1) For cross-family model selection, they rank a heterogeneous population of reasoning models with mean Spearman Rho = 0.81 (vs. Rho = 0.36 for cross-entropy loss); 2) For pretraining data selection, they reliably rank 25 candidate corpora for a target model at roughly $10{,}000\times$ less compute than direct evaluation, pushing the Pareto frontier beyond existing methods; and 3) for training-time forecasting, they extrapolate downstream accuracy across an $18\times$ compute horizon with roughly half the error of existing alternatives. Together, these results suggest that expert trajectories are a broadly useful source of signal for assessing model capabilities, enabling reliable performance forecasting throughout the model development life cycle.

Modern ML research increasingly faces an evaluation bottleneck: building benchmarks and running experiments is costly, slowing iteration. We ask how much can be inferred about evaluation outcomes before experiments, given only a natural-language description of the task and setup. We call this setting anticipatory evaluation. We introduce EVALCAST, a literature-grounded resource of 2,290 description-performance pairs from 1,519 arXiv papers, including a test set of papers published after the model's knowledge cutoff. We evaluate two tasks: predicting absolute performance through regression and comparing benchmark difficulty through pairwise prediction. Experiments with frontier LLMs show that accurate regression remains challenging, while pairwise predictions can recover relative performance ordering under matched settings. Comparable performance on post-cutoff and streaming evaluations suggests that the observed signal is not solely attributable to previously reported results. Overall, EVALCAST provides a resource and evaluation framework for studying anticipatory evaluation and its potential use in prioritizing benchmarks.