arXiv subjects

Ezra Karger

Publications and source records attributed to Ezra Karger.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

ForecastBench-Sim: A Simulated-World Forecasting Benchmark

Forecasting benchmarks for general-purpose AI systems usually inherit the constraints of the real world: outcomes resolve slowly, tail events are rare, and counterfactual questions are difficult to score. We introduce ForecastBench-Sim, a simulated-world forecasting benchmark built on game rollouts from Freeciv, a turn-based strategy game modelled on the Civilization series. Forecasters receive a fixed world report (a structured snapshot of the current game state) and answer questions about hidden future states; the benchmark then continues the simulation and scores forecasts. Because the world is simulated, the same setup can generate continuous or binary forecasting questions at arbitrary time horizons, paired intervention worlds for conditional or causal questions, and resolved examples of rare or disruptive outcomes. We describe the benchmark pipeline, question families, scoring protocol, and release artifacts, and report validation slices from model evaluations and an anonymized human pilot. ForecastBench-Sim is intended to complement real-world forecasting benchmarks by providing controlled, immediately resolvable tasks for studying probabilistic reasoning under dynamic world states.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

WOMAC: A Mechanism For Prediction Competitions

Competitions are widely used to identify top performers in judgmental forecasting and machine learning, and the standard competition design ranks competitors based on their cumulative scores against a set of realized outcomes or held-out labels. However, this standard design is neither incentive-compatible nor very statistically efficient. The main culprit is noise in outcomes/labels that experts are scored against; it allows weaker competitors to often win by chance, and the winner-take-all nature incentivizes misreporting that improves win probability even if it decreases expected score. Attempts to achieve incentive-compatibility rely on randomized mechanisms that add even more noise in winner selection, but come at the cost of determinism and practical adoption. To tackle these issues, we introduce a novel deterministic mechanism: WOMAC (Wisdom of the Most Accurate Crowd). Instead of scoring experts against noisy outcomes, as is standard, WOMAC scores experts against the best ex-post aggregate of peer experts' predictions given the noisy outcomes. WOMAC is also more efficient than the standard competition design in typical settings. While the increased complexity of WOMAC makes it challenging to analyze incentives directly, we provide a clear theoretical foundation to justify the mechanism. We also provide an efficient vectorized implementation and demonstrate empirically on real-world forecasting datasets that WOMAC is a more reliable predictor of experts' out-of-sample performance relative to the standard mechanism. WOMAC is useful in any competition where there is substantial noise in the outcomes/labels.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

When Large Language Models are More PersuasiveThan Incentivized Humans, and Why

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to be highly persuasive, but when and why they outperform humans is still an open question. We compare the persuasiveness of two LLMs (Claude 3.5 Sonnet and DeepSeek v3) against humans who had incentives to persuade, using an interactive, real-time conversational setting. We demonstrate that LLMs persuasive superiority is context-dependent: it depends on whether the persuasion attempt is truthful (towards the right answer) or deceptive (towards the wrong answer) and on the LLM model, and wanes over repeated interactions (unlike human persuasiveness). In our first large-scale experiment, humans vs LLMs (Claude 3.5 Sonnet) interacted with other humans who were completing an online quiz for a reward, attempting to persuade them toward a given (either correct or incorrect) answer. Claude was more persuasive than incentivized human persuaders both in truthful and deceptive contexts and it significantly increased accuracy if persuasion was truthful, but decreased it if persuasion was deceptive. In a follow-up experiment with Deepseek v3, we replicated the findings about accuracy but found greater LLM persuasiveness only if the persuasion was deceptive. Linguistic analyses of the persuaders texts suggest that these effects may be due to LLMs expressing higher conviction than humans.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Tell Me Why: Incentivizing Explanations

Common sense suggests that when individuals explain why they believe something, we can arrive at more accurate conclusions than when they simply state what they believe. Yet, there is no known mechanism that provides incentives to elicit explanations for beliefs from agents. This likely stems from the fact that standard Bayesian models make assumptions (like conditional independence of signals) that preempt the need for explanations, in order to show efficient information aggregation. A natural justification for the value of explanations is that agents' beliefs tend to be drawn from overlapping sources of information, so agents' belief reports do not reveal all that needs to be known. Indeed, this work argues that rationales-explanations of an agent's private information-lead to more efficient aggregation by allowing agents to efficiently identify what information they share and what information is new. Building on this model of rationales, we present a novel 'deliberation mechanism' to elicit rationales from agents in which truthful reporting of beliefs and rationales is a perfect Bayesian equilibrium.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Identifying good forecasters via adaptive cognitive tests

Assessing forecasting performance is a time intensive activity, often requiring months or years before we know whether or not the reported forecasts were accurate. Cognitive tests can be quickly administered and are predictive of forecasting performance, but it is unclear which and how many tests are optimal. In this study, we develop adaptive cognitive tests that optimize the selection and efficiency of cognitive tests to assess forecasters of different skill levels. The tests are based on item response models and the adaptive testing procedures commonly used in educational testing. We show how the procedures can select highly informative cognitive tests from a larger battery of tests, thereby reducing the time taken to administer the tests. We use a second, independent dataset to show that the selected tests yield scores that are highly related to out-of-sample forecasting performance. The approach enables real-time, adaptive testing, providing immediate insights into forecasting talent in practical contexts.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2024

ForecastBench: A Dynamic Benchmark of AI Forecasting Capabilities

Forecasts of future events are essential inputs into informed decision-making. Machine learning (ML) systems have the potential to deliver forecasts at scale, but there is no framework for evaluating the accuracy of ML systems on a standardized set of forecasting questions. To address this gap, we introduce ForecastBench: a dynamic benchmark that evaluates the accuracy of ML systems on an automatically generated and regularly updated set of 1,000 forecasting questions. To avoid any possibility of data leakage, ForecastBench is comprised solely of questions about future events that have no known answer at the time of submission. We quantify the capabilities of current ML systems by collecting forecasts from expert (human) forecasters, the general public, and LLMs on a random subset of questions from the benchmark ($N=200$). While LLMs have achieved super-human performance on many benchmarks, they perform less well here: expert forecasters outperform the top-performing LLM ($p$-value $<0.001$). We display system and human scores in a public leaderboard at www.forecastbench.org.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

AI-Augmented Predictions: LLM Assistants Improve Human Forecasting Accuracy

Large language models (LLMs) match and sometimes exceeding human performance in many domains. This study explores the potential of LLMs to augment human judgement in a forecasting task. We evaluate the effect on human forecasters of two LLM assistants: one designed to provide high-quality ("superforecasting") advice, and the other designed to be overconfident and base-rate neglecting, thus providing noisy forecasting advice. We compare participants using these assistants to a control group that received a less advanced model that did not provide numerical predictions or engaged in explicit discussion of predictions. Participants (N = 991) answered a set of six forecasting questions and had the option to consult their assigned LLM assistant throughout. Our preregistered analyses show that interacting with each of our frontier LLM assistants significantly enhances prediction accuracy by between 24 percent and 28 percent compared to the control group. Exploratory analyses showed a pronounced outlier effect in one forecasting item, without which we find that the superforecasting assistant increased accuracy by 41 percent, compared with 29 percent for the noisy assistant. We further examine whether LLM forecasting augmentation disproportionately benefits less skilled forecasters, degrades the wisdom-of-the-crowd by reducing prediction diversity, or varies in effectiveness with question difficulty. Our data do not consistently support these hypotheses. Our results suggest that access to a frontier LLM assistant, even a noisy one, can be a helpful decision aid in cognitively demanding tasks compared to a less powerful model that does not provide specific forecasting advice. However, the effects of outliers suggest that further research into the robustness of this pattern is needed.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Self-Resolving Prediction Markets for Unverifiable Outcomes

Prediction markets elicit and aggregate beliefs by paying agents based on how close their predictions are to a verifiable future outcome. However, outcomes of many important questions are difficult to verify or unverifiable, in that the ground truth may be hard or impossible to access. We present a novel incentive-compatible prediction market mechanism to elicit and efficiently aggregate information from a pool of agents without observing the outcome, by paying agents the negative cross-entropy between their prediction and that of a carefully chosen reference agent. Our key insight is that a reference agent with access to more information can serve as a reasonable proxy for the ground truth. We use this insight to propose self-resolving prediction markets that terminate with some probability after every report and pay all but a few agents based on the final prediction. The final agent is chosen as the reference agent since they observe the full history of market forecasts, and thus have more information by design. We show that it is a perfect Bayesian equilibrium (PBE) for all agents to report truthfully in our mechanism and to believe that all other agents report truthfully. Although primarily of interest for unverifiable outcomes, this design is also applicable for verifiable outcomes.

cs.GT↗