Prediction Markets

Extracting informative representations from longitudinal data that can predict future outcomes remains a critical challenge in medicine. Medical datasets are inherently heterogeneous, consisting of a large number of variables collected from different sources, sampled with different temporal spacings, and representing different aspects of human health status. This requires identifying those variables with predictive value, processing longitudinal information, and integrating multiple variables for outcome prediction. Here, we propose a novel agent-based approach, LongAgent, that can autonomously search over combinations of variable sets, temporal windows and longitudinal aggregation functions, and identify candidates with promising predictive performance. LongAgent utilises a history memory of previous searches and numerical evidence to guide subsequent exploration. On synthetic data, LongAgent achieves a mean prediction RMSE of 1.7376 and improves over the strongest non-agent baseline by 0.0151 (95% CI: [0.0045,0.0260]; p=0.0273). On a real clinical dataset, it performs comparably to the best baseline.

Large language models are being organized into multi-agent systems with specialized roles, but whether such specialization produces distinct forecasts and whether subsequent synthesis improves utility remains unclear. In this study, we carried out a live, prospective evaluation over the final 56 matches of the information-dense 2026 FIFA World Cup, keeping a frontier foundation model constant while assigning two primary forecasting agents contrasting specialist roles: a quantitative specialist focusing on structured performance statistics and a news specialist focusing on current injuries, tactics and information from press conferences. Their forecasts were then reviewed by a separate critic before being combined by a meta-agent, resulting in a sequential four-agent model. Forecasts from the betting market served as an external benchmark. The news specialist obtained the highest mean probability-weighted Top-3 utility and matched the betting market in Top-3 exact-score hits. Nevertheless, the two specialist forecasters agreed on at least two of the three scorelines in 50 out of 56 matches, and the meta-agent never generated more than one scoreline outside the specialists' forecast set. These findings show that rapidly changing, unstructured information can provide a valuable forecasting signal alongside structured statistics, whereas adding critic and meta-agent stages does not necessarily create complementary information or improve on the strongest specialist.

Machine learning, and deep networks in particular, are increasingly used to derive higher-level Earth observation (EO) products such as annual land-cover and crop-type maps. Many are generated operationally: each year a new acquisition is processed, typically with the same model, extending a multi-year archive. In the process these systems accumulate two kinds of useful signal that are almost never fed back into the model: the system's own archive of past predictions, and ancillary layers produced by other partners in a processing consortium. Both are normally used outside the network, as rule-based post-processing or a fixed input mask. Using the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service High Resolution Layer (HRL) Croplands crop-type product as a testbed, we show that bringing both signals inside the model turns a single-year, single-task pixel classifier into one that reasons across years. We introduce a Crop Type (CTY) embedding encoder that represents each past prediction as a confidence-scaled, time-ordered categorical token and attends over the year axis, and we study how the externally provided Base Vegetation Layer (BVL) mask should be represented in the model's inputs and outputs. To compare designs fairly when they relabel non-crop pixels, we evaluate on the 18 crop classes only and report precision and recall separately. On a pan-European dataset of about 5.4M labelled pixels, adding the prediction history raises crop-only F1 by 1.6 percentage points (pp) and, more importantly, corrects a recall-skewed error profile, with the largest gains on perennial and tree crops (olives +4.6, fruits +3.7, nuts +3.2 pp). Representing the BVL mask consistently in both the history and the target year adds about 2.5 pp on the crop classes. The approach is a low-cost recipe for any recurring geospatial or foundation model that emits class maps.

Benchmarks that measure the forecasting ability of large language models are almost always retrospective: the event has happened, the answer is somewhere on the Web, and the evaluation must defend itself against memorisation. We report the opposite design. Over the 39 days of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, six frontier LLMs -- all with extended thinking and native server-side web search -- were asked before every kickoff, one match at a time, to fill in a seven-market prediction card for all 104 matches, plus 12 group winners and a pre-tournament outright pool; no answer existed when the question was asked, so the evaluation is leakage-free by construction rather than by filtering, and the frozen archive holds 4,494 scored predictions. What the tournament establishes is a set of behaviours the six systems share. On match outcome they average 63.9%, level with backing the bookmaker's favourite -- which is in fact what they usually do. They agree with one another far more often than they are right, so a majority vote adds nothing. They under-commit to draws and to goals, and crowd their scoreline picks onto a single prototypical result. Accuracy tracks how lopsided a fixture is rather than how much is known about it: it collapses in the closest ties, where the dossiers are richest, while questions about the tournament as a whole are answered well. On this task the current generation of frontier systems is not sharply differentiated: the standings hold up at the top and the bottom across the run and churn in the middle, and the margins stay narrow throughout. The briefing dossiers, fixtures and official results are released as a benchmark, together with the scoring code.

Large language models (LLMs) are now regularly asked to forecast real-world events, but comparisons are often difficult because models receive different information, use different tools, and are evaluated under different rules. This paper reports the completed \emph{AI World Cup} benchmark, in which ten LLM-based assistants made a single pre-tournament forecast of the entire 2026 FIFA World Cup. Every submission used the same tournament snapshot, prompt, JSON schema, and scoring procedure. The forecasts covered group-stage scores, group rankings, the knockout bracket, final placings, confidence values, and short explanations. After all 104 matches had been played, GPT-5.5 Thinking finished first with 744 points, followed by GPT-5.5 with 717, Gemini with 699, and Qwen 3.7 with 687. GPT-5.5 Thinking was also the only model to select Spain, which defeated Argentina 1--0 in the final, as champion. The final ranking was driven mainly by knockout performance: total score was strongly correlated with knockout points ($r=0.986$), but showed little relationship with group-stage match points ($r=0.055$), group-standing points ($r=-0.103$), or their combined pre-knockout score ($r=-0.054$). Match-level accuracy produced a different ordering. Claude Sonnet 4.6 correctly predicted the largest number of group-stage outcomes (63.89%) but placed sixth overall. Average self-reported confidence was also unrelated to either outcome accuracy ($r=-0.060$) or total score ($r=-0.067$). The results suggest that forecasting a complete tournament tests something different from predicting matches one at a time, while also showing how strongly a bracket-based leaderboard can depend on scoring design. The benchmark materials, raw responses, and scoring code are released to support replication and future extensions.

Postoperative adverse events, including mortality and morbidity, remain a major global burden, many of which are preventable through early identification of high-risk patients and targeted perioperative care. Accurate risk stratification is therefore essential. With the growing availability of large-scale electronic health records (EHRs), machine learning (ML) provides a data-driven approach to model complex clinical patterns. However, existing studies vary widely in design, and methodological practices remain fragmented. This scoping review characterizes ML pipelines for surgical risk stratification and outcome prediction using EHR data. We reviewed 190 studies covering the ML workflow, including data preprocessing, algorithm selection, model evaluation, and explainability. Most studies relied on single-center private datasets with limited data modalities, while the scarcity of open-access surgical datasets constrained reproducibility and generalizability. Reporting of key preprocessing steps, including missing data handling, feature selection, and class imbalance, was often incomplete. Conventional ML models and simple neural networks predominated, whereas deep learning and multimodal approaches remained uncommon. Benchmark datasets and standardized evaluation protocols were largely absent, hindering cross-study comparisons. Only about one-third of studies incorporated explainability methods. This review identifies methodological gaps limiting clinically robust postoperative ML tools and provides a structured reference to support more rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful ML development for perioperative care.

Predicting a football match before kickoff requires more than knowing past results: a model must use changing information and make a clear prediction before the answer is available. We present WorldCupArena, a dynamic benchmark for language models and deep-research agents. The 2026 FIFA World Cup is its first evaluation, and the same process can be reused for future leagues and cups. Before each match, a model either receives a common evidence package or searches for information itself. It predicts the result and score, likely players and events, match statistics, and the outcome of the competition. After the match, these predictions are compared with the recorded result. We report result accuracy, exact-score accuracy, and a scoreline score that gives some credit when a predicted score is close but not exact, together with scores for the other prediction tasks. Across systems, similar result accuracy can mask larger differences in detailed predictions. Four systems predicted champion Spain, and two of them also recovered the exact final pairing. Compared with betting-market and human-fan baselines, the best system shows only small gains in result and exact-score accuracy, but a clearer gain in Scoreline. New schedules can be added as they begin, allowing the benchmark to evaluate future models without using outcomes that are already known. Code, predictions and evaluation scripts will be publicly released.

Forecasters are evaluated by backtesting, which replays resolved questions and grades the probability the system would have assigned before the outcome was known. For LLMs, two channels leak the answer into this test. A model that retrieves can surface reports written after the event, turning forecasting into a lookup, and each new model is trained on data closer to the event, so a question that lay in the future for last year's models sits inside this year's training data. Either way, the test grades recall while claiming to grade foresight. We introduce Hindcast, which closes both leaks by grading a model as if it stood at a chosen past date $t_0$, before the outcome existed in either channel. Hindcast replays resolved Polymarket prediction markets against a frozen snapshot of public Reddit, lets the model read only posts written before $t_0$, and scores each forecast against both what happened and the market's own price at $t_0$, itself a human forecast made from the same past information. Because the cutoff is set per market and the snapshot never changes, the evaluation re-runs on new markets as models improve, without going stale. Once the leak is closed, retrieval still helps most models, but only where Reddit discussed the event beforehand. Where the archive carried only speculation, retrieval hurts.

Designing balanced adversaries is a central but labor-intensive task in tabletop role-playing game (TTRPG) development. In systems such as Pathfinder, each monster is described by many numerical attributes that jointly determine its power, summarized as an ordinal level. We investigate whether machine learning can support designers by predicting this level from a monster's attributes, framing the task as tabular ordinal regression. We introduce what is, to our knowledge, the first dataset built specifically for TTRPG monster-level prediction, derived from publicly available Pathfinder Second Edition data. Using it, we compare classical regression models with rounding schemes, dedicated tabular ordinal regression algorithms, and neural networks with ordinal-aware losses. To mirror real design workflows, we evaluate all models under chronological and expanding-window protocols with several complementary metrics. Results show that tree-based ensembles outperform linear models and neural approaches, achieving near-perfect ordinal ranking and high predictive accuracy. Explainable AI analyses, such as feature importance and error distributions, show that the model is aligned with human intuition and follows patterns grounded in game rules. Together, these results show that machine learning can reliably approximate designer judgments and serve as an effective computer-aided tool for monster balancing and broader TTRPG system design.

Prediction markets aggregate dispersed beliefs into prices that act as probabilistic forecasts of uncertain events. Classical theory establishes a clean equivalence between forecasting accuracy and trading profit, but only for the specific automated market maker (AMM) design. However, the largest exchanges today are based on central limit order books in which informed forecasters routinely lose money while uninformed strategies can profit on simple heuristics. We resolve this discrepancy by establishing a formal equivalence between predictive accuracy and profitability. For any strictly proper scoring rule $S$, we exhibit a "proper" betting strategy that depends only on the forecaster's prediction $\mathbf{p}$ and the market price $\mathbf{q}$, and earns positive expected profit whenever $\mathbf{p}$ outperforms $\mathbf{q}$ under $S$ and the market has sufficient liquidity. Moreover, this proper betting is essentially the only strategy with such robust profitability guarantee. The proof rests on a decomposition of expected profit that strictly generalizes the classical AMM guarantee and also explains how strategies can profit without an accuracy edge. Empirically, across thousands of forecasts by AI models, proper betting is the only strategy that reliably converts accuracy into profit, and we further identify systematic forecasting personas and show how the optimal proper strategy varies across them. A month-long live deployment on Kalshi achieves $+80.33\%$ return on investment with a Sharpe ratio of $3.35$.

Forecasting future events has attracted growing attention as a testbed for general-purpose AI. A natural way to ground this evaluation is let the models trade in the prediction markets. Trading, however, requires more than forecasting. Moreover, recent benchmarks report a substantial gap between calibrated probability scores and the trading results. We propose Raven-Agent, to the best of our knowledge, the first autonomous trading agent for prediction markets. On a controlled replay over an archived decision set, our architecture achieves the only positive return and the only positive risk-adjusted return among all tested policies. We have released our code in https://github.com/Alchemist-X/predict-raven .

Whether pairing people with AI helps or hurts is usually reported as a single average effect. Using a real-money prediction market (Polymarket) as an objective, externally resolved benchmark, this pilot shows that the value of human-AI collaboration depends on a specific, measurable form of human capital. Analyzed at the level of the individual forecaster, hybrid performance is trimodal: most people either deferred to the model (matching it) or used it to rubber-stamp a prior guess (performing worse than the model alone), while a minority engaged in genuine complementary reasoning and reached accuracy matching or even exceeding (i.e., lower error than) the market itself. Collaborative traits (perspective-taking, intellectual humility, and curiosity) rather than raw cognitive ability or model benchmarks, distinguished who reached that mode. The results are preliminary but statistically robust, and motivate a pre-registered replication now in preparation.

Multi-agent systems are increasingly used for forecasting future events, as deliberation among multiple LLMs is believed to improve reasoning and calibration. Yet existing approaches overlook a critical design choice: what information each agent receives. When all agents are given identical evidence, deliberation collapses into herding rather than genuine belief revision, leaving multi-agent systems little better than a single agent. We identify this as a fundamental gap and propose designed information asymmetry to close it: by partitioning evidence into shared public and disjoint private subsets, each agent holds exclusive knowledge that can only reach others through deliberation. We theoretically show that this decomposition reduces inter-agent error correlation, and instantiate it in InfoDelphi, a framework combining relevance-aware evidence routing, rationale-based iterative deliberation, and confidence-weighted aggregation. On PolyGym, a benchmark of 375 binary forecasting questions derived from real-world prediction markets, InfoDelphi outperforms the strongest single-agent and multi-agent baselines by 12--18% in Brier score and 4--8 percentage points in accuracy. More detailed experiments confirm that removing information asymmetry eliminates most deliberation gains, establishing diversity of input as the key enabler of effective multi-agent reasoning.

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.

We introduce TabPFN-CFM, a causal foundation model that can handle multiple causal problems. TabPFN-CFM predicts both causal structure and outcomes from observational data, supports queries on all three levels of Pearl's Causal Hierarchy and uses known graph structure when available to improve predictions. TabPFN-CFM is trained on synthetic datasets, and generalises to real datasets, demonstrating improved performance over both structural and outcome prediction baselines.

As LLM agents proliferate in prediction markets and collective decision-making, they risk a cognitive monoculture: agents built on shared foundation models produce correlated forecasts, and recent measurement finds frontier-model errors correlated at r ~ 0.77. We ask whether human cognitive diversity can be recovered from behavior and transferred to LLM agents. Nous extracts a structured eight-dimension behavioral profile from real Polymarket trading activity and injects it into agents through prompts. Our central finding is a dissociation between the two halves of that pipeline. Extraction works, partially: across 100 wallets, 8 of 14 parameters are temporally stable (split-half ICC >= 0.5, bootstrap CI lower bound > 0.3; contrarian score reaches ICC ~ 0.9); wallets are identifiable from their profiles well above chance (top-1 retrieval 17-22% vs. 1% chance); and two of four pre-specified dimensions rank-correlate with future realized profit out-of-sample, though the correlations do not survive behavioral-confound controls. Prompt-level injection does not measurably transmit it: on a semantic embedding metric, structured injection shows no significant advantage over a length-matched control on any model, and the diversity it induces neither reduces ensemble error correlation nor improves Brier score -- a null that persists across exploratory checks on sampling temperature, profile diversity, and question difficulty. Measuring the prompts themselves locates the compression before the model: the structure-to-narrative translator emits near-uniform prompts whose spread does not track profile spread. We position Nous as measuring the cognitive-monoculture problem and the limits of a prompt-level remedy, motivating deeper, below-the-prompt injection (fine-tuning, activation steering). Code, frozen profiles, prompts, and model outputs: https://github.com/WillChienT/nous-paper

Understanding and predicting how social beliefs evolve in response to events -- from policy changes to scientific breakthroughs -- remains a fundamental challenge in social science. Given LLMs' commonsense knowledge and social intelligence, we ask: Can LLMs model the dynamics of social beliefs following social events? In this work, we introduce the concept of the Social World Model (SWM), a general framework designed to capture how social beliefs evolve in response to major events. SWM learns state-transition functions for social beliefs by mining temporal patterns in social data and optimizing the evidence lower bound, without the need for explicit human annotations linking events to belief shifts, or for expensive census data. To evaluate SWM, we introduce a benchmark, SWM-bench, derived from real-world prediction markets, specifically Kalshi and Polymarket. SWM-bench includes over 12k data points for social belief prediction tasks spanning diverse domains such as politics, finance, and cryptocurrency. Our experimental results show that SWM significantly outperforms time-series foundation models, achieving state-of-the-art results on Kalshi data and demonstrating competitive performance on Polymarket data, while offering interpretable insights into the underlying mechanisms of social belief dynamics.

Cancer care requires a longitudinal approach in which treatments are planned and delivered over time according to the needs of each individual patient. While prior research has thoroughly explored how clinical and demographic factors, such as comorbidities and age, inform treatment planning, far less attention has been devoted to the delivery phase of care. Yet planning and delivery are both team-based processes that depend on coordinated efforts among multiple healthcare professionals (HCPs). As such, the human factors embedded in these collaborative practices are crucial to optimizing patient outcomes. Despite this importance, the existing literature on human factors in cancer care is limited, and very few studies have investigated how collaboration within care teams evolves over the course of treatment. To fill this gap, this work examine how HCPs' collaboration, captured through electronic health record (EHR) systems, affects cancer patient outcomes, with particular emphasis on teamwork dynamics. We represent EHR-mediated HCP interactions as networks and apply machine learning methods to identify predictive signals of patient survival embedded in these collaborative structures. We further interpret model predictions by pinpointing network characteristics and dynamic patterns associated with particular outcomes. We evaluate our model through robustness analyses to ensure that the findings are stable and not driven by stochastic variation in training. Additionally, our insights align with hypotheses proposed in the medical literature, and our results provide the empirical, data-driven evidence supporting these claims. Overall, our work contributes a practical workflow for leveraging digital traces of collaboration to evaluate and strengthen longitudinal team-based healthcare, offering actionable insights to guide data-informed interventions in healthcare delivery.

Prediction markets aggregate collective intelligence to forecast uncertain events, but their utility depends on reliable outcome resolution. Existing oracle systems tradeoff fast but brittle automation against accurate but costly human arbitration. Single-LLM oracles achieve meaningful accuracy but inherit all failure modes of their underlying model with no self-correction mechanism. We evaluate whether multi-agent LLM architectures can improve oracle resolution accuracy over single-model baselines. We compare independent aggregation and deliberative consensus against single-LLM baselines (GPT-5 Nano, DeepSeek V3, and Llama-3.3-70B) on 1,189 resolved prediction market questions from KalshiBench. All agents share a common evidence layer through Exa, with retrieval filtered by publication date to isolate reasoning from retrieval quality. Independent aggregation with confidence-weighted voting achieves the highest accuracy at 83.43 percent, outperforming the best individual model by 1.01 percentage points. Deliberative consensus degrades accuracy to approximately 76 percent, below every single-model baseline, attributed to error propagation during debate where confidently wrong models flip correct ones. Error correlations across models (0.529-0.689) explain why aggregation gains fall short of the theoretical Condorcet ceiling, placing a fundamental limit on ensemble approaches. Many questions resist correction by any multi-agent architecture, motivating escalation to human arbitration. We propose routing criteria for hybrid AI-human oracle systems: auto-resolving only unanimous, high-confidence questions yields 97.87 percent accuracy on 47 percent of the dataset, with inter-agent disagreement flagging the remainder for human review.

Prediction markets such as Polymarket aggregate crowd beliefs into real-time probability estimates, and the comments traders post beneath each market contain rich directional stance signals that prices alone cannot capture. This work introduces the first stance detection study applied to prediction market commentary, a domain characterized by extreme brevity, trader- specific vernacular, and severe class imbalance (only 8.7% of comments oppose the market outcome). RoBERTa-base is fine-tuned across a 4 x 3 ablation: four input configurations ({2- class, 3-class} x {with/without market context}) and three augmentation conditions (baseline, 50% synthetic, 100% synthetic). Synthetic minority-class samples are generated via LLM-driven Pro -> Anti counterfactual flips using the Anthropic API. Results show that (1) market context is the single most impactful factor, raising 3-class Anti recall from 0.10 to 0.45; (2) counterfactual augmentation is conditionally effective, improving Anti F1 in weak configurations (0.10 -> 0.24) while degrading strong ones (2-class-ctx macro F1: 0.68 -> 0.50 at full dose); and (3) 50% augmentation is the optimal dose, with 100% consistently hurting performance. Attention-based interpretability analysis provides mechanistic support for all three findings.

This paper introduces PolyGnosis 2.0, a pioneering multi-agent architecture designed to extract predictive intelligence by synthesizing Polymarket anomaly signals with global Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) streams, specifically Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT). We define and target "Perspective Mismatches", the narrative divergence between Polymarket sentiment and global media flows, as high-alpha trading signals. Moving beyond generic agentic superiority, we rigorously quantify the efficacy of "Harness Engineering" techniques, including reflection loops, tool-calling, divide-and-conquer partitioning (D&C), and chain-of-thought (CoT), within high-noise financial domains. Our empirical evaluation against human-expert benchmarks reveals that while structural partitioning is mandatory for multi-dimensional alignment, unconstrained terminal reflection actively induces logical drift. Furthermore, we identify a pervasive "consensus bias" across all agent configurations during narrative reasoning, necessitating deterministic validation. Ultimately, we isolate a Pareto-optimal configuration that achieves professional-grade analytical precision while minimizing latency and token overhead, providing a robust blueprint for autonomous intelligence in prediction markets.

Proactive autoscaling for containerized workloads depends on knowing the provisioning delay, i.e., the time between a scaling decision and the moment new capacity is ready to serve traffic. In practice, this cold-start duration can vary substantially across environments and even across consecutive scale-out events. We present ADAPT (Adaptive Duration Approximation for Predictive Timing), an online EWMA estimator that tracks coldstart duration at runtime. ADAPT feeds a dynamic planning horizon, FH-OPT, into a Model Predictive Controller (MPC) that optimizes replica counts over a rolling window. Together, these components form a closed-loop proactive autoscaling design that adapts its lookahead based on measured provisioning delay. Evaluated across three policies (MPC+LSTM, MPC+Prophet, HPA) and six workload archetypes with five random seeds, MPC+LSTM achieves below 5% SLA violation on all workloads, compared with 7-19% for reactive HPA and up to 28.7% for MPC+Prophet on bimodal traffic.

In algorithmic markets, predictive models become part of the data-generating process they aim to forecast. Once their outputs are converted into trades, allocations, execution schedules, or risk controls, they change the future data on which they are evaluated. I introduce algometrics, a framework for time series whose evolution depends on the predictive algorithms forecasting them. The framework distinguishes historical risk, measured under passive forecasting, from deployment risk, measured when forecasts drive actions. I prove three results. First, deployment risk is not identifiable from passive historical data alone: even in a one-step linear feedback model, infinitely many algorithm-mediated environments induce the same historical law while implying different deployment risks for the same forecaster. Second, historical model rankings can invert under crowding, so a predictor with lower passive error can have higher deployment error once similar algorithms are adopted. Third, randomized or instrumented actions identify short-horizon linear feedback, and I derive a finite-sample bound for deployment-risk estimation. These results suggest that time-series benchmarks in algorithmic markets should report feedback sensitivity alongside predictive accuracy.

Structured launch signals on Product Hunt contain statistically significant predictive information for Series A funding outcomes. We construct PHBench from 67,292 featured Product Hunt posts spanning 2019-2025, linked to Crunchbase funding records via deterministic domain matching, identifying 528 verified Series A raises within 18 months of launch (positive rate: 0.78%). Our best-performing model, a three-component ensemble (ENS_avg, ENS_ISO, XGB) selected by validation F0.5, achieves F0.5 = 0.097 and AP = 0.037 (95% CI: 0.024-0.072; 4.7x lift over random) on the private held-out test set (103 positives). A paired bootstrap confirms a statistically credible advantage over the logistic regression baseline (AP delta: +0.013, 95% CI: [0.004, 0.039], p < 0.001; F0.5 delta: +0.056, 95% CI: [0.006, 0.122], p = 0.016). Validation-set metrics (F0.5 = 0.284, AP = 0.126) reflect best-of-144 selection bias on 53 positives and are reported for benchmark reproducibility only. We further evaluate three zero-shot Gemini models (Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 3 Flash, and Gemini 3.1 Pro) in an anonymized numerical setting. The best LLM achieves AP = 0.034 (Gemini 3 Flash), below the LR baseline AP of 0.044. Notably, the most capable Gemini variant (Gemini 3.1 Pro, AP = 0.023) performs worst -- an unexpected pattern that warrants further investigation across providers and prompting strategies. Both ML and LLM models show the same temporal performance decay tracking the 2020-2021 funding boom and subsequent contraction, confirming the dataset captures genuine market structure rather than noise. PHBench provides a reproducible framework comprising public training, validation, and blind test splits; 61 engineered features; a five-metric evaluation harness; and a public leaderboard at https://phbench.com. All code, baseline models, and anonymized dataset splits are publicly available.

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.

Estimating racial disparity requires individual-level race data, which are often unavailable due to the sensitivity of collecting such information. To address this problem, many researchers utilize Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG), which have critically relied on Census surname data. Unfortunately, these data capture race-surname relationships only for common surnames, omitting approximately 10% of the US population. We show that predictive performance degrades substantially for individuals with such omitted, uncommon surnames because standard BISG implementation relies on a uninformative generic prior in these cases. To address this limitation, we propose embedding-powered BISG (eBISG), which uses pre-trained text embeddings to represent names as dense vectors and trains neural networks on 2020 Census surname and first-name data to estimate race probabilities for names not covered in the Census. We compare five approaches: standard BISG using only surnames, BIFSG incorporating first name probabilities, surname embedding for unlisted names, surname and first name embedding combining both, and a full-name embedding trained on voter file data from Southern states that captures interactions between name components. We show that each successive eBISG approach improves race prediction, with the full-name embedding yielding the largest gains, particularly for Hispanic and Asian voters whose surnames are absent from the Census list.

Prediction markets are markets for trading claims on future events, such as presidential elections, and their prices provide continuously updated signals of collective beliefs. In decentralized platforms such as Polymarket, the market lifecycle spans market creation, token registration, trading, oracle interaction, dispute, and final settlement, yet the corresponding data are fragmented across heterogeneous off-chain and on-chain sources. We present the first continuously maintained dataset suite for the full lifecycle of decentralized prediction markets, built on Polymarket. To address the challenges of large-scale cross-source integration, incomplete linkage, and continuous synchronization, we build a unified relational data system that integrates three canonical layers: market metadata, fill-level trading records, and oracle-resolution events, through identifier resolution, on-chain recovery, and incremental updates. The resulting dataset spans October 2020 to March 2026 and comprises more than 770 thousand market records, over 943 million fill records, and nearly 2 million oracle events. We describe the data model, collection pipeline, and consistency mechanisms that make the dataset reproducible and extensible, and we demonstrate its utility through descriptive analyses of market activity and two downstream case studies: NBA outcome calibration and CPI expectation reconstruction.

Automated Market Makers (AMMs), as a core infrastructure of decentralized finance (DeFi), uniquely drive on-chain asset pricing through a deterministic reserve ratio mechanism. Unlike traditional markets, AMM price dynamics is triggered largely by on-chain events (e.g., swap) that change the reserve ratio, rather than by continuous responses to off-chain information. This makes event-level analysis crucial for understanding price formation mechanisms in AMMs. However, existing research generally neglects the micro-structural dynamics at the AMMs level, lacking both a comprehensive dataset covering multiple protocols with fine-grained event classification and an effective framework for event-aware modeling. To fill this gap, we construct a dataset containing 8.9 million on-chain event records from four representative AMMs protocols: Pendle, Uniswap v3, Aave and Morpho, with precise annotations of transaction type and block height timestamps. Furthermore, we propose an Uncertainty Weighted Mean Squared Error (UWM) loss function, which incorporates the block interval regression term into the traditional Time-Point Process (TPP) objective function by weighting the uncertainty with homoscedasticity. Extensive experiments on eight advanced TPP architectures demonstrate that this loss function reduces the time prediction error by an average of 56.41% while maintaining the accuracy of event type prediction, establishing a robust benchmark for event-aware prediction in the AMMs ecosystem. This work provides the necessary data foundation and methodological framework for modeling the discreteness and event-driven characteristics of on-chain price discovery. All datasets and source code are publicly available. https://github.com/yosen-king/Deep-AMM-Events

Can Large Language Models (AI agents) aggregate dispersed private information through trading and reason about the knowledge of others by observing price movements? We conduct a controlled experiment where AI agents trade in a prediction market after receiving private signals, measuring information aggregation by the log error of the last price. We find that although the median market is effective at aggregating information in the easy information structures, increasing the complexity has a significant and negative impact, suggesting that AI agents may suffer from similar limitations as humans when reasoning about others. Consistent with our theoretical predictions, information aggregation remains unaffected by allowing cheap talk communication, changing the duration of the market or initial price, and strategic prompting, thus demonstrating that prediction markets are robust. We establish that "smarter" AI agents perform better at aggregation and they are more profitable. Surprisingly, giving them feedback about past performance has no impact on aggregation.

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.

Converting betting odds into accurate outcome probabilities is a fundamental challenge in order to use betting odds as a benchmark for sports forecasting and market efficiency analysis. In this study, we propose two methods to overcome the limitations of existing conversion methods. Firstly, we propose an odds-only method to convert betting odds to probabilities without using historical data for model fitting. While existing odds-only methods, such as Multiplicative, Shin, and Power exist, they do not adjust for biases or relationships we found in our betting odds dataset, which consists of 90014 football matches across five different bookmakers. To overcome these limitations, our proposed Odds-Only-Equal-Profitability-Confidence (OO-EPC) method aligns with the bookmakers' pricing objectives of having equal confidence in profitability for each outcome. We provide empirical evidence from our betting odds dataset that, for the majority of bookmakers, our proposed OO-EPC method outperforms the existing odds-only methods. Beyond controlled experiments, we applied the OO-EPC method under real-world uncertainty by using it for six iterations of an annual basketball outcome forecasting competition. Secondly, we propose a generalised linear model that utilises historical data for model fitting and then converts betting odds to probabilities. Existing generalised linear models attempt to capture relationships that the Efficient Market Hypothesis already captures. To overcome this shortcoming, our proposed Favourite-Longshot-Bias-Adjusted Generalised Linear Model (FL-GLM) fits just one parameter to capture the favourite-longshot bias, providing a more interpretable alternative. We provide empirical evidence from historical football matches where, for all bookmakers, our proposed FL-GLM outperforms the existing multinomial and logistic generalised linear models.

Unlike Business-to-Consumer e-commerce platforms (e.g., Amazon), inexperienced individual sellers on Consumer-to-Consumer platforms (e.g., eBay) often face significant challenges in setting prices for their second-hand products efficiently. Therefore, numerous studies have been proposed for automating price prediction. However, most of them are based on static regression models, which suffer from poor generalization performance and fail to capture market dynamics (e.g., the price of a used iPhone decreases over time). Inspired by recent breakthroughs in Large Language Models (LLMs), we introduce LLP, the first LLM-based generative framework for second-hand product pricing. LLP first retrieves similar products to better align with the dynamic market change. Afterwards, it leverages the LLMs' nuanced understanding of key pricing information in free-form text to generate accurate price suggestions. To strengthen the LLMs' domain reasoning over retrieved products, we apply a two-stage optimization, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by group relative policy optimization (GRPO), on a dataset built via bidirectional reasoning. Moreover, LLP employs a confidence-based filtering mechanism to reject unreliable price suggestions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LLP substantially surpasses existing methods while generalizing well to unseen categories. We have successfully deployed LLP on Xianyu\footnote{Xianyu is China's largest second-hand e-commerce platform.}, significantly outperforming the previous pricing method. Under the same 30% product coverage, it raises the static adoption rate (SAR) from 40% to 72%, and maintains a strong SAR of 47% even at 90% recall.

Real-time market prediction services need correct predictions before a decision deadline; a correct prediction delivered late is not usable. TIP-Search studies time-predictable inference scheduling over fixed market predictors under uncertain load. It filters conformal latency-quantile feasible models, dispatches over finite workers, and uses shielded constrained online experts to trade accuracy, queue pressure, and deadline risk. On the optimized deployable pool, TIP-Search reaches 0.994 raw accuracy and 0.991 timely accuracy. On official TLOB FI-2010 h=10, TIP-Search++ raises timely accuracy from 0.156 to 0.239 and deadline satisfaction from 0.391 to 0.962. In matched h10 profiled systems replay, OCO-ACPO reaches 0.303 timely accuracy and 0.951 deadline satisfaction, with paired gains over RAMSIS/SneakPeek/utility-style comparators of $+0.00285$ timely accuracy ($p=0.0118$) and $+0.0146$ deadline satisfaction ($p=1.5{\times}10^{-5}$). SA-OCO-ACPO improves timely/deadline service by 0.188--0.417 over CPO under nonstationary stress. The claim is a systems scheduling result, not a broad LOB classifier leaderboard.