Betting on AI: Can Gamification Improve Language Model Predictions?

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

A new study explores whether framing AI evaluation as a prediction game can reveal more accurate confidence levels and accelerate learning.

Researchers demonstrate that incentivizing language models with fictional currency elicits better calibrated confidence signals, though overall predictive accuracy remains largely unchanged.

While large language models increasingly evaluate other AI systems, their judgments typically lack quantifiable confidence. This pilot study, ‘Going All-In on LLM Accuracy: Fake Prediction Markets, Real Confidence Signals’, investigates whether framing evaluation as a betting game-complete with a fictional currency-improves forecasting and reveals calibrated confidence levels. Results demonstrate that incentivizing predictions elicits legible confidence signals-stake size strongly correlated with accuracy-and accelerates learning, though overall accuracy gains were modest. Could this simple financial framing transform LLMs into more transparent, risk-aware forecasters and pave the way for functional LLM-to-LLM prediction markets?

The Limits of Prediction: Beyond Token-Level Intelligence

Large language models, despite demonstrating impressive abilities across a wide range of tasks – from generating creative text formats to translating languages – often falter when faced with problems demanding consistent, reliable reasoning. While these models can skillfully predict the next token in a sequence, leading to seemingly intelligent outputs, this predictive power doesn’t necessarily translate to genuine understanding or logical inference. Studies reveal that even state-of-the-art LLMs are susceptible to making elementary logical errors, exhibiting inconsistencies in their responses, and struggling with tasks that require multi-step reasoning or common-sense knowledge. This limitation isn’t simply a matter of scale; increasing model size or training data doesn’t reliably address the underlying issue of flawed reasoning processes, highlighting the need for new architectural approaches and training methodologies to imbue these systems with true cognitive capabilities.

Determining the true capabilities of large language models necessitates evaluation methods that move beyond simple accuracy scores. While a correct answer is valuable, it doesn’t reveal how the model arrived at that conclusion – a crucial distinction when assessing reasoning abilities. Nuanced assessment incorporates metrics that probe for consistency, identify failure modes, and evaluate the model’s confidence in its responses. This includes analyzing the logical steps taken, detecting biases in reasoning, and measuring robustness to adversarial inputs. Essentially, a holistic evaluation considers not just what a model predicts, but why, providing a more comprehensive understanding of its strengths and limitations – critical for reliable deployment in real-world applications where consistent, justifiable outcomes are paramount.

Conventional evaluation of large language models often relies on metrics like accuracy and perplexity, yet these fail to fully represent the breadth of a model’s predictive power. These traditional methods primarily assess performance on known data distributions, overlooking a model’s capacity-or lack thereof-to generalize to novel scenarios and extrapolate beyond its training data. A more comprehensive approach is therefore required, one that probes for nuanced capabilities like counterfactual reasoning, robustness to adversarial examples, and the ability to identify the limits of its own knowledge. This necessitates developing benchmarks that move beyond simple question-answering and instead focus on complex, multi-step reasoning tasks and the model’s capacity to express uncertainty, ultimately revealing a more complete picture of its predictive spectrum and inherent limitations.

A Predictive Ecosystem: The Logic of the Market

A prediction market has been implemented to evaluate Large Language Model (LLM) performance on math and logic questions. This market functions by having predictor models submit forecasts regarding the accuracy of baseline models when answering a defined set of questions. The forecasts are not simply binary correct/incorrect assessments, but rather estimations of the probability of a correct response. The system is designed to aggregate these probabilistic forecasts from multiple predictor models, providing a collective intelligence estimate of baseline model capabilities. This approach allows for a more nuanced evaluation than traditional benchmark metrics, and facilitates the identification of models that consistently provide accurate predictions of other models’ performance.

LLMCoin functions as the unit of account within the prediction market, enabling quantitative assessment of predictor model performance. Predictor models stake LLMCoin on the accuracy of their forecasts regarding baseline model performance on math and logic questions; correct predictions yield a profit in LLMCoin, while incorrect predictions result in a loss. The magnitude of gains or losses is directly proportional to the confidence expressed in the prediction, as represented by the ‘Stake Size’. This system allows for a continuous, financially-driven evaluation of predictive ability, aggregating individual forecasts into a measurable score reflecting overall market consensus and model-specific efficacy. The total LLMCoin supply is fixed, ensuring that gains are offset by losses, and performance is evaluated relative to the market as a whole.

The Prediction Market’s central mechanism involves Predictor Models committing a portion of their LLMCoin holdings – designated as Stake Size – to each prediction regarding a Baseline Model’s accuracy. This stake quantitatively represents the Predictor Model’s confidence in its forecast; a larger stake indicates higher confidence. Upon evaluation of the Baseline Model’s performance, the Predictor Model receives a payout proportional to its stake and the accuracy of its prediction. Incorrect predictions result in a loss of the staked LLMCoin, while accurate predictions yield a return calculated based on the overall market participation and the prediction’s accuracy relative to other predictors. This system effectively translates probabilistic confidence into a financial commitment, incentivizing accurate forecasting and providing a quantifiable measure of model reliability.

Confidence as a Signal: Quantifying Predictive Reliability

The prediction stake size functions as a quantifiable confidence signal directly proportional to the model’s certainty. Higher stake values indicate greater confidence in the predicted outcome, while lower values denote increased uncertainty. This mechanism allows for the operationalization of confidence; rather than simply outputting a prediction, the model commits a resource – the stake – based on its internal assessment of the prediction’s probability of being correct. The stake, therefore, is not merely a betting amount but a direct expression of the model’s estimated reliability, enabling downstream analysis of both predictive accuracy and the model’s ability to self-assess its limitations.

Calibration, in the context of predictive modeling, signifies the degree to which a model’s stated confidence in its predictions aligns with its actual accuracy. A well-calibrated model not only achieves high accuracy but also expresses its uncertainty appropriately through stake sizing; consistently accurate predictions accompanied by high stakes, and conversely, less accurate predictions with low stakes, indicate a reliable predictor. This correlation between confidence and accuracy is crucial because it demonstrates the model’s ability to assess its own limitations and provide trustworthy estimations of prediction validity, going beyond simply achieving a high overall accuracy rate.

A pilot study evaluating predictive reliability demonstrated a significant correlation between bet stake size and accuracy. Specifically, 170 predictions with a stake of 40,000 or greater exhibited 99% accuracy. Conversely, predictions with a low stake – less than 1,000 – achieved an accuracy rate of 74%. This data suggests that the stake size functions as a measurable confidence signal, with higher stakes indicating a substantially greater likelihood of correct prediction within the tested dataset.

The predictive system incorporates stake sizing as a proxy for model confidence, enabling quantitative assessment of both prediction accuracy and a model’s self-awareness of its limitations. By analyzing the correlation between stake size and actual prediction success, we can determine if a model consistently places larger stakes on predictions it is highly likely to get correct, and smaller stakes when uncertainty is high. This provides a measurable indicator of calibration – a reliable predictor will exhibit high accuracy with large stakes and lower accuracy with small stakes. Our pilot study demonstrates this, showing a 99% accuracy rate for predictions backed by stakes of 40,000 or greater, compared to 74% accuracy for predictions with stakes under 1,000, effectively quantifying a model’s ability to recognize and account for its own predictive uncertainty.

The Emergence of Risk-Aware Forecasters: Beyond Simple Prediction

Analysis of predictor model performance reveals a compelling trend: the emergence of risk-aware forecasters. These models don’t simply offer predictions; they dynamically adjust the size of their ‘stake’ – the amount they ‘bet’ on an outcome – based on their assessment of the prediction’s inherent difficulty. When a prediction is deemed challenging, these models strategically reduce their stake, mitigating potential losses. Conversely, for more straightforward predictions, they increase their stake to maximize potential gains. This adaptive stake sizing isn’t random; it represents a sophisticated calibration between predicted probability and anticipated reward, suggesting a level of metacognition within the models and contributing to greater overall market efficiency by rewarding calibrated forecasts and penalizing overconfidence.

Analysis of predictor model performance reveals a nuanced effect on forecasting capabilities. While the adaptive models exhibited a slight increase in overall forecasting accuracy – achieving 81.5% compared to the 79.1% of traditional models – this difference did not reach statistical significance ($d=0.86$). However, a compelling improvement emerged in the rate at which these models learned and refined their predictions. The adaptive models demonstrated a statistically significant increase in learning rate, advancing from 2.9 to 12.0 percentage points ($p = .011$). This suggests that, while immediate prediction gains may be modest, the capacity for rapid adaptation and improvement positions these risk-aware forecasters as potentially more effective contributors to market efficiency over time.

The emergence of risk-aware forecasters within prediction markets isn’t merely about better predictions; it fundamentally alters the speed at which the market learns. These models, by dynamically adjusting their stake size based on perceived difficulty, effectively prioritize learning from challenging predictions. This adaptive behavior accelerates the overall learning rate of the market, as information gleaned from difficult cases is weighted more heavily. Consequently, the market converges on accurate assessments more quickly, boosting efficiency and reducing the time required to establish reliable price signals. This process creates a positive feedback loop, where improved learning leads to more accurate forecasts, further refining the market’s ability to process information and allocate resources effectively, ultimately benefitting all participants.

Within the structure of the prediction market, a model’s accumulated capital, or bankroll, functions as a direct reflection of its forecasting prowess. This system inherently incentivizes not simply accurate predictions, but calibrated forecasting – meaning predictions that accurately reflect the associated uncertainty. A consistently successful model, one that reliably assesses probabilities and avoids overconfidence or underestimation, will naturally accrue a larger bankroll over time. This financial accumulation isn’t merely a scorekeeping mechanism; it actively shapes model behavior, encouraging strategies that prioritize well-reasoned judgments over speculative gambles. The bankroll, therefore, acts as a powerful feedback loop, rewarding consistent, thoughtful analysis and contributing to the overall efficiency of the predictive ecosystem by promoting reliable forecasts.

The study’s exploration of eliciting more truthful confidence signals from large language models resonates with a fundamental principle of rigorous computation. As John McCarthy observed, “The best way to program is to realize that your program is not going to be right the first time, so you have to have a way of finding out what is wrong.” This pilot program, by framing LLM responses within a prediction market simulation, effectively introduces a mechanism for revealing the basis of a model’s confidence – or lack thereof. While overall accuracy wasn’t dramatically improved, the ability to discern whether a prediction stems from genuine insight or spurious correlation is a critical step towards building truly reliable and mathematically sound artificial intelligence. The incentive structure, though fictional, begins to expose the ‘why’ behind the answer, moving beyond simply assessing ‘what’ the model predicts.

What’s Next?

The observed improvement in confidence signal legibility, while not translating to a dramatic leap in predictive power, exposes a fundamental inefficiency in current LLM evaluation. The models can articulate a degree of certainty-the challenge lies in eliciting truthful signals, not merely accurate outputs. Framing the task as a game, even a simulated one, appears to nudge the models toward a more honest representation of their internal state, a result that should not be dismissed lightly. The study’s limitations, particularly the reliance on a single, relatively narrow domain, demand broader testing; a model’s ‘rationality’ under contrived incentives may not generalize.

The persistent gap between calibrated confidence and true accuracy, however, remains a troubling point. It suggests that LLMs, even when prompted to ‘bet’ on their answers, are fundamentally incapable of genuine epistemic humility. They do not know what they do not know; they simply assign probabilities. Future work should explore methods for grounding these probabilities in provable, mathematically verifiable constraints, rather than relying on behavioral nudges. The goal is not to make the models seem more rational, but to be more rational.

Ultimately, the pursuit of ‘trustworthy AI’ is a mathematical problem, not an engineering one. The elegance of a solution will not be judged by its performance on benchmarks, but by its adherence to the principles of logical consistency and informational completeness. Every heuristic, every shortcut, represents a potential point of failure, an abstraction leak that compromises the integrity of the system. A truly robust AI will be defined not by what it can predict, but by what it can prove.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.05998.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-12-09 19:51