Digital agents can now gather and organize information, reason over it, and use tools to complete complex tasks. Forecasting puts all of these abilities to the test: it requires integrating incomplete evidence, inferring causal drivers, and committing to calibrated probabilistic judgments. Existing benchmarks are poorly suited to measuring and improving this ability. Live benchmarks provide feedback only after events resolve, so every evaluation cycle waits on the calendar; fixed-corpus evaluations return results immediately but confine research to pre-collected documents. We introduce FABench, a scalable backtesting environment for Forecasting Agents. An automated pipeline discovers events, generates questions, and resolves outcomes for any past forecast date, so the benchmark can be renewed to stay ahead of model training cutoffs; its first release poses 287 questions across nine domains. Agents research each question freely in an archive environment that combines an offline archive with live web search screened to prevent temporal leakage. Evaluating agents built on eight recent models, we find that retrieval improves the Brier score of all eight in every retrieval setting and lifts the leading agents to the market consensus on the 54 questions linked to Polymarket, with the best three scoring slightly above it. Research traces reveal recurring failures in how agents weigh and apply evidence, leaving ample room for improvement. We release our code, data, and archive environment as a foundation for community research on forecasting agents.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of FABench . The upper part generates questions, and the lower part is the archive environment in which an agent researches a question and gives a probability, scored against the outcome at the bottom right. The red line marks the forecast date t0 : content to its left was published before t0 , and content to its right after t0 .
Figure 2: BI under full (left) and ECE under none and full (right) of each model. Lower ECE is better; JEV 1.13.0 and StartLux 27B do not retrieve, so they appear with their none scores.
Model
none
archive
online-filtered
full
GPT-6 Astra
54.33
57.57 (+3.24)
58.33 (+4.00)
58.42 (+4.09)
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
53.78
57.24 ( +3.46 )
58.48 ( +4.70 )
58.02 ( +4.24 )
GPT-6 Sol
53.51
56.48 (+2.97)
57.59 (+4.08)
57.60 (+4.09)
Claude Opus 5.5
55.04
56.48 (+1.44)
57.42 (+2.38)
57.48 (+2.44)
Kimi K3
51.39
56.36 ( +4.97 )
57.81 ( +6.42 )
57.23 ( +5.84 )
GLM 5.3
53.15
55.77 (+2.62)
56.35 (+3.20)
56.18 (+3.03)
Table 2: BI of each model in the four information settings, each on the questions the model answered in that setting, with the difference from none in parentheses. Bold marks the highest and underlining the second highest score and gain in each column.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Value
Forecast date t0
July 1, 2026, 00:00 UTC; forecasters may use only information published strictly before it.
Horizon
From t0 to the prediction cutoff, 1.8 to 184 days, median 62.
Prediction cutoff
Latest time for the event to occur (111 questions), end of the observation period (115), deadline for the result to be published (48), or another scheduled time (13).
Resolution window
Agent-written questions settled by September 17, 2026; Polymarket questions closed after t0 and resolved by September 16, 2026.
Question writers
LLM agents in two rounds. Round 1 (geopolitics, sports, culture, health, weather; one agent per domain) searched the open web; round 2 (politics, technology, finance, economy and more health questions) used only sources dated before t0 .
Review
A separate LLM agent of the same model family, without web search, reviewed the agent-written questions for unambiguous resolution and for whether they were still open at t0 .
Appendix
Table 3: Parameters of the first release.
Domain
Questions
Agent-written
Polymarket
Yes rate
Finance
77
65
12
62%
Economy
65
58
7
49%
Politics
33
31
2
73%
Technology
27
23
4
78%
Health
24
21
3
62%
Sports
17
14
3
53%
Appendix
Table 4: Questions by domain. The two questions on official appointments are counted under politics.
Model
none
archive
online-filtered
300 Polymarket questions, posed in March (22% Yes)
DeepSeek V4 Pro
61.33
61.80
–
GLM 5.3
60.43
62.04
–
Qwen3.8-27B
59.11
61.40
–
232 written questions, posed at March 1 (63% Yes)
DS V4.1 Flash
54.11
52.60
53.55
Appendix
Table 5: BI at the forecast date of March 1, 2026.
Setting
A search result shows
Most results
A read returns
archive
an archive document; search can also browse captures by entity and date
up to 20
the document text
online-filtered
an admitted web page: sentences selected by the reviewer
up to 10
the page text
full
⌈N/2⌉ archive documents and at most ⌊N/2⌋ web pages, shown as above
up to 20
pages of 20,000 characters
Appendix
Table 6: The search and read tools in each setting.
Forecasting model
Reviews
Withheld as later
Rate
GPT-6 Astra
18,508
2,892
15.6%
DS V4.1 Flash
71,452
12,692
17.8%
GPT-6 Sol
19,062
2,506
13.1%
Claude Opus 5.5
8,983
1,202
13.4%
Kimi K3
64,147
9,861
15.4%
GLM 5.3
15,579
2,430
15.6%
Appendix
Table 7: Temporal review in the online-filtered runs, by forecasting model; the last two models belong to an earlier lineup.
Model
Identifier
Parameters
Released
Training cutoff
Access
GPT-6 Astra
gpt-6-astra
undisclosed
Sep 2026
Apr 2026
Codex CLI
GPT-6 Sol
gpt-6-sol
undisclosed
Sep 2026
Apr 2026
Codex CLI
Claude Opus 5.5
claude-opus-5-5
undisclosed
Sep 2026
Jun 2026
Claude Code
DS V4.1 Flash
deepseek-flash
748B, 16B active b
Sep 2026
early 2026 ∗
DeepSeek API
Kimi K3
k3
2.8T, 104B active
Jul 2026
early 2026 ∗
Kimi API a
GLM 5.3
glm-5.3
744B, 40B active
Aug 2026
late 2025 ∗c
GLM API
Appendix
Table 8: Evaluated models.
Model
Setting
n
BI
Tool calls
Searches
Page reads
Input tokens (k)
GPT-6 Astra
none
287
54.33
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
archive
265
57.57
3.2
2.9
0.4
58
online-filtered
265
58.33
9.9
5.8
4.0
175
full
287
58.42
10.4
6.1
4.3
206
DS V4.1 Flash
none
287
53.78
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
archive
287
57.24
18.1
16.3
1.8
1,415
Appendix
Table 9: Forecasts, BI and retrieval effort per question in each run. Tool calls are searches plus page reads.
Model
online-filtered − archive
full − archive
full − online-filtered
GPT-6 Astra
+1.08 [ − 0.14, +2.31]
+0.57 [ − 0.46, +1.62]
− 0.51 [ − 1.45, +0.33]
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
+0.90 [ − 0.90, +2.79]
+0.67 [ − 0.91, +2.22]
− 0.23 [ − 1.66, +1.20]
GPT-6 Sol
+1.50 [+0.15, +2.86]
+0.84 [ − 0.23, +1.92]
− 0.66 [ − 1.99, +0.61]
Claude Opus 5.5
+0.88 [ − 0.40, +2.20]
+0.90 [ − 0.35, +2.18]
+0.02 [ − 1.29, +1.35]
Kimi K3
+0.90 [ − 1.03, +2.80]
+0.69 [ − 0.92, +2.41]
− 0.21 [ − 1.86, +1.40]
GLM 5.3
+0.81 [ − 0.72, +2.40]
+0.82 [ − 0.47, +2.21]
+0.01 [ − 1.44, +1.40]
Appendix
Table 10: Difference in BI between retrieval settings on the 233 common questions, with 95% intervals from a paired bootstrap with 4,000 resamples; positive values favor the first setting.
Figure 6: Difference in Brier score between two retrieval settings for each of the 233 common questions, averaged over the eight models; bins are 0.02 wide, and negative values favor the first setting. Colors mark, in all three panels, the questions consistently better under online-filtered or archive in the first panel; 110, 118 and 127 questions lie within 0.02 of zero in the three panels.
Model
archive
online-filtered
full
Average of the two
GPT-6 Astra
57.84
58.91
58.40
58.62
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
57.80
58.69
58.46
58.73
GPT-6 Sol
56.61
58.10
57.45
57.64
Claude Opus 5.5
56.17
57.05
57.07
56.85
Kimi K3
56.78
57.68
57.47
57.74
GLM 5.3
55.93
56.74
56.76
56.68
Appendix
Table 11: BI on the 233 common questions of each retrieval setting and of the average of each model’s archive and online-filtered probabilities.
Domain
n
archive
online- filtered
full
full − archive
>0
online-filtered − archive
>0
Finance
77
+4.47
+3.87
+4.31
− 0.12 [ − 1.25, +0.96]
3
− 0.43 [ − 1.55, +0.88]
3
Economy
65
+3.69
+3.39
+2.67
− 0.86 [ − 1.85, +0.20]
3
− 0.08 [ − 1.32, +1.19]
4
Technology
27
+3.53
+6.91
+6.31
+2.35 [ − 0.58, +5.71]
7
+2.96 [ − 0.74, +7.42]
6
Health
24
+2.30
+6.24
+4.04
+1.74 [ − 1.17, +4.69]
6
+3.92 [+1.43, +6.29]
7
Sports
17
+1.07
− 1.02
+0.55
− 0.53 [ − 2.90, +1.71]
3
− 1.79 [ − 4.22, +0.33]
2
Culture
16
+1.66
+5.98
+5.39
+3.51 [ − 0.08, +7.80]
8
+4.22 [ − 0.03, +9.12]
8
Appendix
Table 12: Gain in BI over none by domain, averaged over models, and differences between settings with 95% intervals over the questions of the domain. Each model uses the questions of the domain that it answered in both compared settings, as in , and the intervals use 1,500 resamples; columns headed >0 count the models with a positive difference.
Forecasting requires large language model (LLM) agents to gather evolving evidence, revise their beliefs, and make calibrated predictions over time. Yet evaluating and improving these capabilities is challenging because real-world events unfold continuously and outcomes may take months to resolve. We introduce Forecast-Dojo, a replayable environment that reconstructs resolved prediction-market events as sequences of dated forecasting steps, enabling reproducible evaluation, longitudinal analysis, and training from agent interactions. It comprises 1,568 Polymarket events split temporally into training and evaluation sets, alongside 18.8 million dated news articles. Across 12 models, research tools consistently improve forecasting performance, and greater capture of new evidence is associated with larger improvements over time. Nevertheless, all models trail historical market forecasts, while carrying a belief notebook across dates reduces research costs without consistently improving forecast quality. We supervise fine-tuned Qwen3-30B-A3B-Thinking-2507 on collected trajectories from Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 to demonstrate the environment's training utility. The student's accuracy is improved from 34.8% to 42.8% on the evaluation set.
Liqin Ye, Haorui Wang, Fardin Ahmed +8
Georgia Institute of Technology · Amazon · University of Florida
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.
Maksym Nechepurenko, Pavel Shuvalov
Director of Research, Devnull, Dubai, UAE · Chief Technology Officer, Devnull, Dubai, UAE
We introduce TimeSeek, a benchmark for studying how the reliability of agentic LLM forecasters changes over a prediction market's lifecycle. We evaluate 10 frontier models on 150 CFTC-regulated Kalshi binary markets at five temporal checkpoints, with and without web search, for 15,000 forecasts total. Models are most competitive early in a market's life and on high-uncertainty markets, but much less competitive near resolution and on strong-consensus markets. Web search improves pooled Brier Skill Score (BSS) for every model overall, yet hurts in 12% of model-checkpoint pairs, indicating that retrieval is helpful on average but not uniformly so. Simple two-model ensembles reduce error without surpassing the market overall. These descriptive results motivate time-aware evaluation and selective-deference policies rather than a single market snapshot or a uniform tool-use setting.