How Proper Scoring Rules Shape LLM Forecasting

This paper evaluates how reward function choice shapes the performance and behavior of LLM forecasters. We compare five proper scoring rules as training objectives for binary forecasts of resolved real-world events. Although the rules share the same theoretical incentive for truthful probability reporting, the resulting models differ in calibration, probability use, and estimated profiles of bias, information, and noise, with smaller differences in aggregate accuracy and discrimination. The Brier-trained model has the lowest observed Brier score and highest AUC-ROC, while the log-trained model has the highest observed log score and lowest calibration error. Models with similar aggregate performance also reach that performance through different combinations of bias, information, and noise. Proper scoring rules therefore need not behave interchangeably as training objectives. Reward choice may shape not only how well an LLM forecasts, but how its forecasting errors are structured. Each condition uses a single seed, so some differences may reflect training stochasticity.

WorldCup Arena: Prospective, Leakage-Free Evaluation of Frontier LLMs on a Live Tournament

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.

Hindcast: Replaying Prediction Markets to Evaluate LLM Forecasters

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.

What LLM Forecasters Know but Don't Say: Probing Internal Representations for Calibration and Faithfulness

Large language models fine-tuned for forecasting can be accurate yet poorly calibrated, and their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning may not faithfully reflect the evidence behind a forecast. We ask whether internal representations offer a more direct window into both. Working with Eternis-Forecaster 8B on OpenForesight, we train representation-pooling probes on intermediate activations and find they achieve substantially better calibration; a result that also holds for GLM-4.7-Flash and GLM-4.5-Air. We then assess CoT faithfulness through evidence ablation and diversionary injection: removing an influential source in the prompt often changes the model's forecast while leaving the reasoning trace untouched. The same probes function as lie detectors: their activations track behavioral shifts far better than the reasoning trace does, and they also predict the direction of change in 84% of cases, including when the CoT conceals the perturbation's influence. Finally, forced answering reveals that forecasts are largely fixed before reasoning begins: a single pre-reasoning pass recovers the committed answer and confidence, and routing questions by the spread of this pre-set answer distribution saves 30-47% of generated tokens, with no loss of accuracy. Together, these results establish probing internal representations as a practical tool for calibrating, auditing, and triaging language model forecasters and reasoning models more broadly.

Measuring Judgment Quality in Natural-Language Explanations: Evidence from Forecasting Tournaments

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.

Forecasting With LLMs: Improved Generalization Through Feature Steering

Successful forecasting involves identifying patterns between historical and future states of the world which generalize to future observations. We apply LLMs to a variety of forecasting tasks and inspect their internal states using sparse autoencoders to understand whether they appear to rely on time-specific pieces of knowledge versus generalizable patterns. Our analyses identify features associated with both time-aware reasoning and look-ahead-biased reasoning. We then apply the LLMs to an entirely different domain and intervene on these features. We find that amplifying time-awareness features substantially reduces look-ahead bias on forecasting prompts while preserving general reasoning performance. In contrast, steering the candidate look-ahead-bias features does not produce an effect. These results suggest that interpretable temporal features can be used to causally shift LLMs toward more historically grounded reasoning.

Is Capability a Liability? More Capable Language Models Make Worse Forecasts When It Matters Most

We document inverse scaling in LLMs on forecasting problems whose underlying time series exhibit superlinear growth and tail risk of regime change, a structure common in finance and epidemiology. On these tasks, more capable models produce worse distributional forecasts. The pattern appears on ForecastBench-Sim (FBSim), a contamination-free, simulated-world benchmark we release, in forecasting synthetic SIR epidemics with a matched linear control, and replicates in real-world datasets on COVID-19, measles, housing markets, and hyperinflation. A per-quantile decomposition shows the failure concentrates at the upper tail, which more capable models shift upward to track aggressive extrapolations of growth, while the lower tail stays put. A within-family study of Llama-3.1 shows that both model scale and post-training independently contribute to this effect. Domain knowledge does not reliably rescue calibration. This inverse scaling does not appear on single-threshold metrics common in LLM forecasting benchmarks, reversing the sign of the capability--accuracy relationship on identical outputs. Single-threshold scoring at conventional cutoffs misses the upper-tail cost; tail-inclusive scoring reverses the sign of the capability--accuracy relationship on the same outputs. We recommend that LLM forecasting evaluations use continuous (and unbounded) measures of accuracy alongside bounded binary threshold metrics.