Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces LEAP, a novel framework for probabilistic forecasting that addresses the limitations of Monolithic Prediction by separately eliciting likelihood parameters from individual evidence items. By utilizing a deterministic probabilistic model to combine these likelihoods into a posterior distribution, LEAP enhances the interpretability of how evidence influences predictions while maintaining uncertainty across competing outcomes. The evaluation shows that LEAP significantly improves prediction and calibration metrics compared to existing methods, even under varying conditions of prior access and inference budgets.
LEAP reveals that separating evidence evaluation can drastically enhance the accuracy and interpretability of probabilistic forecasts in LLM applications.
LLM-based forecasting systems have improved on real-world tasks such as financial markets and sports outcomes, largely through stronger search and tool use. Many systems still ask an LLM to read all collected evidence together and produce the final forecast. We call this design Monolithic Prediction. It can obscure how individual evidence items affect the result and collapse uncertainty across competing outcomes. We propose LEAP (Likelihood Elicitation and Aggregation for Probabilistic forecasting), which reorganizes how collected evidence is used in the prediction stage. LEAP examines each evidence item separately and elicits likelihood parameters that describe its implications for the target. An explicit prior and a deterministic probabilistic model then combine these likelihoods into a posterior distribution. This procedure supports continuous, single-choice, and multi-choice forecasts while preserving reproducible evidence contributions. We build a benchmark covering forecasting, information-seeking, and browsing tasks, and evaluate LEAP on our own agent loop and several agent CLI frameworks. Given the same evidence, LEAP improves most prediction and calibration metrics across models and remains stronger under controlled comparisons of prior access, inference budget, and aggregation.
