Reliable detection of skilled forecasters is slow and resource-intensive. The gold-standard approach relies on proper scores and requires forecasters to answer dozens of questions, which may take months or years to resolve. To accelerate skill identification, we propose the Full Accuracy Score (FAS). FAS combines the strengths of objective ground-truth proper scores with the early availability of proper proxy scores that measure the distance between individual and consensus estimates (Witkowski et al. 2017). FAS treats the two inputs as complements, using ground-truth scores on resolved questions and proxy scores on questions with yet unknown answers. The proxy component acts as a running tally of individual performance and helps to complete the evolving picture of relative skill.

No abstract available.

Laboratory research has shown that both underreaction and overreaction to new information pose threats to forecasting accuracy. This article explores how real-world forecasters who vary in skill attempt to balance these threats. We distinguish among three aspects of updating: frequency, magnitude, and confirmation propensity. Drawing on data from a four-year forecasting tournament that elicited over 400,000 probabilistic predictions on almost 500 geopolitical questions, we found that the most accurate forecasters made frequent, small updates, while low-skill forecasters were prone to confirm initial judgments or make infrequent, large revisions. High-frequency updaters scored higher on crystallized intelligence and open-mindedness, accessed more information, and improved over time. Small-increment updaters had higher fluid intelligence scores, and derived their advantage from initial forecasts. Update magnitude mediated the causal effect of training on accuracy. Frequent, small revisions provided reliable and valid signals of skill. These updating patterns can help organizations identify talent for managing uncertain prospects.

Forecasting of geopolitical events is a notoriously difficult task, with experts failing to significantly outperform a random baseline across many types of forecasting events. One successful way to increase the performance of forecasting tasks is to turn to crowdsourcing: leveraging many forecasts from non-expert users. Simultaneously, advances in machine learning have led to models that can produce reasonable, although not perfect, forecasts for many tasks. Recent efforts have shown that forecasts can be further improved by ``hybridizing'' human forecasters: pairing them with the machine models in an effort to combine the unique advantages of both. In this demonstration, we present Synergistic Anticipation of Geopolitical Events (SAGE), a platform for human/computer interaction that facilitates human reasoning with machine models.

Proper scoring rules can be used to incentivize a forecaster to truthfully report her private beliefs about the probabilities of future events and to evaluate the relative accuracy of forecasters. While standard scoring rules can score forecasts only once the associated events have been resolved, many applications would benefit from instant access to proper scores. In forecast aggregation, for example, it is known that using weighted averages, where more weight is put on more accurate forecasters, outperforms simple averaging of forecasts. We introduce proxy scoring rules, which generalize proper scoring rules and, given access to an appropriate proxy, allow for immediate scoring of probabilistic forecasts. In particular, we suggest a proxy-scoring generalization of the popular quadratic scoring rule, and characterize its incentive and accuracy evaluation properties theoretically. Moreover, we thoroughly evaluate it experimentally using data from a large real world geopolitical forecasting tournament, and show that it is competitive with proper scoring rules when the number of questions is small.