Hugging Face Trending Papers

Dutch Books for Language Models

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

The paper investigates the coherence of probabilistic forecasts produced by language models, particularly when users rely on them for life decisions involving uncertain events. Using a de Finetti-based method, the authors extract forecasts from language models about stock‑return events and compute the maximum Dutch‑book profit via linear programming, a metric of incoherence that does not require observed outcomes. The study finds significant incoherence, especially when events have complex logical relationships or when irrelevant context is present, and suggests that alternative training strategies could improve probabilistic coherence.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at Hugging Face Trending Papers.

arXiv AI
Sep 3

Dutch Books for Language Models

The paper investigates the coherence of probabilistic forecasts produced by language models, particularly in the context of life‑decision support. Using a de Finetti‑based method, the authors elicit forecasts for events derived from stock return data and compute the maximum Dutch‑book profit via linear programming, which quantifies incoherence. They find significant incoherence, especially when events have complex logical relationships or when irrelevant context is present, and suggest that alternative training strategies could improve coherence.

By Isaiah Andrews, Suproteem Sarkar
arXiv AI
3d ago

Understanding as No-Arbitrage: Bounded Dutch Books as a Definition and Training Objective for Language Models

The paper proposes measuring a language model’s understanding via no‑arbitrage, defining it as the inability of a bounded trader to profit from Dutch books against the model’s probabilities on logically related claims. It shows that full logical coherence is computationally infeasible, that standard next‑token training yields incoherent predictions across formats, and that uncertainty grows predictably along reasoning chains, creating arbitrage opportunities. The authors introduce Arbitr, a training framework that penalizes logical inconsistencies while maintaining accuracy, reducing exploitability by orders of magnitude and revealing a scaling illusion where large models appear coherent yet exhibit extreme unjustified confidence.

By Daniel Dragonevskiy
arXiv AI
Aug 25

LLM-based Agents for Forecasting and Prediction: Methods, Training, Evaluation, and Applications

arXiv:2608.23058v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now support forecasting systems that combine language-based reasoning with temporal data, evidence retrieval, external too...

By Xiaogang Xu, Jiaqi Tang, Jianmin Chen, Yingying Yan, Zhenchao Tang, Xiangxin Zhou, Xiaobin Hu, Wei Wei, Jinfeng Wu, Qifeng Chen, Lu Zhou, Jiafei Wu, Zhe Liu, Jianwei Yin, Weimin Zheng
arXiv AI
Sep 2

LEAP: Likelihood Elicitation and Aggregation for LLM-based Probabilistic Forecasting

LEAP (Likelihood Elicitation and Aggregation for Probabilistic forecasting) is a new approach that reorganizes how evidence is used in LLM-based forecasting systems. Instead of a monolithic prediction that aggregates all evidence at once, LEAP examines each evidence item separately, elicits likelihood parameters, and combines them with an explicit prior to produce a posterior distribution. The method supports continuous, single-choice, and multi-choice forecasts and has been shown to improve prediction and calibration metrics across models on a benchmark covering forecasting, information-seeking, and browsing tasks.

By Yufei Chen, Yiran Zhao, Xiaogang Xu, Qipeng Xie, Jiafei Wu, Zhe Liu