Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
Stanford HAIFederal Reserve Bank of ChicagoForecasting Research InstituteGood Judgment IncUofTUPennVectorJun 29, 2026arXiv:2606.30987This study introduces Explanation Quality Markers (EQMs), a set of sixty reasoning patterns evaluated by large language models (LLMs) to measure the quality of natural-language explanations in forecasting tournaments. By analyzing over 55,000 forecast-rationale pairs, the authors demonstrate that EQMs significantly predict forecasting accuracy, outperforming traditional text-analysis methods and revealing an asymmetric signal where underperformers are more easily identified than top forecasters. The findings indicate that human ratings of rationale quality are less reliable, emphasizing the potential of EQMs as a scalable tool for extracting judgment-relevant insights from expert explanations.
EQMs reveal that explanation quality can be quantitatively assessed, offering a more reliable indicator of forecasting accuracy than traditional methods.
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.
