aiqbench analysis
This study evaluates whether recent upgrades to Claude and Qwen models consistently improve probability estimates for prediction markets compared to simple base-rate baselines. Results indicate that newer model versions or higher tiers do not reliably produce more accurate forecasts, suggesting that question composition and event category matter more than raw model hierarchy in this context. These findings are critical for developers and researchers aiming to integrate LLMs into forecasting systems, highlighting the need to interpret AI-generated probabilities alongside empirical baselines.
Can LLMs Predict the Future? A Brier Score Analysis of Prediction Markets
arXiv:2609.32885v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study whether model upgrades improve probability estimates for prediction-market questions. Our Resolved Market Forecasting (RMF) benchmark contains 3,000 resolved binary questions across nine domains, on which we evaluate six Claude and Qwen model variants using a question-only, zero-shot protocol. We assess Brier scores relative to an empirical base-rate predictor, examine their Murphy decomposition, and compare models through paired differences, with results stratified by event category and timing relative to training cutoffs. In the reported post-cutoff stratum, the four Claude models achieve Brier scores of 0.183-0.192, improving on the base-rate reference by 0.024-0.033. Qwen 32B does not significantly outperform that reference, although its paired Brier is 0.024 lower than that of the 7B checkpoint. The evaluated Claude version and tier upgrades yield no significant improvement. Within-model differences across event categories exceed the observed differences among Claude variants. These results show why forecasting scores should be interpreted alongside simple probability baselines and question composition: under this protocol, newer versions or higher model tiers do not consistently produce more accurate probabilities.
Title:Can LLMs Predict the Future? A Brier Score Analysis of Prediction Markets
Abstract:We study whether model upgrades improve probability estimates for prediction-market questions. Our Resolved Market Forecasting (RMF) benchmark contains 3,000 resolved binary questions across nine domains, on which we evaluate six Claude and Qwen model variants using a question-only, zero-shot protocol. We assess Brier scores relative to an empirical base-rate predictor, examine their Murphy decomposition, and compare models through paired differences, with results stratified by event category and timing relative to training cutoffs. In the reported post-cutoff stratum, the four Claude models achieve Brier scores of 0.183-0.192, improving on the base-rate reference by 0.024-0.033. Qwen 32B does not significantly outperform that reference, although its paired Brier is 0.024 lower than that of the 7B checkpoint. The evaluated Claude version and tier upgrades yield no significant improvement. Within-model differences across event categories exceed the observed differences among Claude variants. These results show why forecasting scores should be interpreted alongside simple probability baselines and question composition: under this protocol, newer versions or higher model tiers do not consistently produce more accurate probabilities.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.32885 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.32885v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.32885 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 275 words
