Design and Evaluation of Multi-Agent AI Oracle Systems for Prediction Market Resolution

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30802v1
• Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 03:44:19 GMT
• Title: Design and Evaluation of Multi-Agent AI Oracle Systems for Prediction Market Resolution
• Abstract summary: Prediction markets aggregate collective intelligence to forecast uncertain events.<n>Existing oracle systems tradeoff fast but brittle automation against accurate but costly human arbitration.<n>We evaluate whether multi-agent LLM architectures can improve oracle resolution accuracy over single-model baselines.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Prediction markets aggregate collective intelligence to forecast uncertain events, but their utility depends on reliable outcome resolution. Existing oracle systems tradeoff fast but brittle automation against accurate but costly human arbitration. Single-LLM oracles achieve meaningful accuracy but inherit all failure modes of their underlying model with no self-correction mechanism. We evaluate whether multi-agent LLM architectures can improve oracle resolution accuracy over single-model baselines. We compare independent aggregation and deliberative consensus against single-LLM baselines (GPT-5 Nano, DeepSeek V3, and Llama-3.3-70B) on 1,189 resolved prediction market questions from KalshiBench. All agents share a common evidence layer through Exa, with retrieval filtered by publication date to isolate reasoning from retrieval quality. Independent aggregation with confidence-weighted voting achieves the highest accuracy at 83.43 percent, outperforming the best individual model by 1.01 percentage points. Deliberative consensus degrades accuracy to approximately 76 percent, below every single-model baseline, attributed to error propagation during debate where confidently wrong models flip correct ones. Error correlations across models (0.529-0.689) explain why aggregation gains fall short of the theoretical Condorcet ceiling, placing a fundamental limit on ensemble approaches. Many questions resist correction by any multi-agent architecture, motivating escalation to human arbitration. We propose routing criteria for hybrid AI-human oracle systems: auto-resolving only unanimous, high-confidence questions yields 97.87 percent accuracy on 47 percent of the dataset, with inter-agent disagreement flagging the remainder for human review.

Related papers

• Calibration-Aware Uncertainty Cascades for Efficient Heterogeneous Model Collaboration [18.045450334322545]
  Heterogeneous model collaboration seeks to exploit the complementary strengths of different models to balance predictive performance and inference cost.<n>Existing approaches typically rely on trained routers, which tie routing decisions to a fixed task and model pool, or on raw-confidence cascades, whose thresholds lack consistent reliability semantics across heterogeneous models.<n>We propose-Aware Uncertainty Cascades (CAUC), a simple post-hoc framework that independently calibrates each model's confidence and selects deployment policies using validation data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T12:14:54Z)
• CUSP: Decomposable Collective Uncertainty for Multi-Agent Multimodal Reasoning [6.428392127849263]
  We present CUSP, a training-free uncertainty framework that maps multiple VLM responses to a shared semantic response space.<n>We report two complementary system-level signals: collective uncertainty, the dispersion of the pooled opinion, and Jensen-Shannon divergence (JSD)<n>In static multi-VLM ensembles, collective uncertainty is the strongest signal in the small-model regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T20:27:47Z)
• Determinants and Limits of LLM Security-Tool Orchestration: A Study with HexStrike-AI [2.2616066835313253]
  We run 86 picoCTF challenges across seven categories and three difficulty tiers, under three tool-access regimes and three model/client configurations.<n>We apply corrections to existing tools, agent-behavior changes, and eleven new capability tools, and re-run the previously-unsuccessful trials.<n>The overall solve rate rises from 55.4% to 72.0%, and every configuration improves significantly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-03T02:20:04Z)
• MARGIN: Runtime Confidence Calibration for Multi-Agent Foundation Model Coordination [0.0]
  We present MARGIN (Multi-Agent Grading via Incremental Normalisation), an online calibration method that learns per-agent, per-band calibration factors from the task stream itself.<n>Across 18 foundation models, 8 benchmarks, and over 44,000 observations, MARGIN achieves 3-6x lower calibration error than the best design-time baseline under distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T18:25:05Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• What Single-Prompt Accuracy Misses: A Multi-Variant Reliability Audit of Language Models [0.0]
  Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter.<n>We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks.<n>We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion.<n>Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T20:05:08Z)
• TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1 [47.384270414446604]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification.<n>We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations.<n>We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:32:58Z)
• CascadeDebate: Multi-Agent Deliberation for Cost-Aware LLM Cascades [3.2562960801091094]
  CascadeDebate is a multi-agent system that coordinates models with human experts to balance accuracy, cost, and abstention under uncertainty.<n>Our architecture alternates single-model inference with selective multi-agent deliberation across model scales, culminating in human experts as the final fallback.<n>Across five benchmarks spanning science, medicine, and general knowledge, CascadeDebate outperforms strong single-model cascades and standalone multi-agent systems by up to 26.75 percent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T04:26:39Z)
• How Independent are Large Language Models? A Statistical Framework for Auditing Behavioral Entanglement and Reweighting Verifier Ensembles [46.63622714488747]
  Shared pretraining data, distillation, and alignment pipelines can induce hidden behavioral dependencies, latent entanglement.<n>In practice, this manifests as correlated reasoning patterns and synchronized failures.<n>We develop a statistical framework for auditing behavioral entanglement among black-box language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T23:32:06Z)
• Encyclo-K: Evaluating LLMs with Dynamically Composed Knowledge Statements [78.87065404966002]
  Existing benchmarks predominantly curate questions at the question level.<n>We propose Encyclo-K, a statement-based benchmark that rethinks benchmark construction from the ground up.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-31T13:55:54Z)
• Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems [79.64446272302287]
  We formalize a definition for agent evaluation and characterize scaling laws as the interplay between agent quantity, coordination structure, modelic, and task properties.<n>We derive a predictive model using coordination metrics, that cross-validated R2=0, enabling prediction on unseen task domains.<n>We identify three effects: (1) a tool-coordination trade-off: under fixed computational budgets, tool-heavy tasks suffer disproportionately from multi-agent overhead, and (2) a capability saturation: coordination yields diminishing or negative returns once single-agent baselines exceed 45%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T06:52:21Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• OmniEAR: Benchmarking Agent Reasoning in Embodied Tasks [52.87238755666243]
  We present OmniEAR, a framework for evaluating how language models reason about physical interactions, tool usage, and multi-agent coordination in embodied tasks.<n>We model continuous physical properties and complex spatial relationships across 1,500 scenarios spanning household and industrial domains.<n>Our systematic evaluation reveals severe performance degradation when models must reason from constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T17:54:15Z)
• Boosting LLM Reasoning via Spontaneous Self-Correction [43.4980625253775]
  One of the approaches for improving math reasoning is self-correction.<n>Existing self-correction approaches treat corrections as standalone post-generation refinements.<n>We propose SPOC, a spontaneous self-correction approach that enables LLMs to generate interleaved solutions and verifications in a single inference pass.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T21:23:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.