When do prophets profit in prediction markets?

Prediction markets aggregate dispersed beliefs into prices that act as probabilistic forecasts of uncertain events. Classical theory establishes a clean equivalence between forecasting accuracy and trading profit, but only for the specific automated market maker (AMM) design. However, the largest exchanges today are based on central limit order books in which informed forecasters routinely lose money while uninformed strategies can profit on simple heuristics. We resolve this discrepancy by establishing a formal equivalence between predictive accuracy and profitability. For any strictly proper scoring rule $S$, we exhibit a "proper" betting strategy that depends only on the forecaster's prediction $\mathbf{p}$ and the market price $\mathbf{q}$, and earns positive expected profit whenever $\mathbf{p}$ outperforms $\mathbf{q}$ under $S$ and the market has sufficient liquidity. Moreover, this proper betting is essentially the only strategy with such robust profitability guarantee. The proof rests on a decomposition of expected profit that strictly generalizes the classical AMM guarantee and also explains how strategies can profit without an accuracy edge. Empirically, across thousands of forecasts by AI models, proper betting is the only strategy that reliably converts accuracy into profit, and we further identify systematic forecasting personas and show how the optimal proper strategy varies across them. A month-long live deployment on Kalshi achieves $+80.33\%$ return on investment with a Sharpe ratio of $3.35$.

Conservative classifiers do consistently well with improving agents: characterizing statistical and online learning

Machine learning is now ubiquitous in societal decision-making, for example in evaluating job candidates or loan applications, and it is increasingly important to take into account how classified agents will react to the learning algorithms. The majority of recent literature on strategic classification has focused on reducing and countering deceptive behaviors by the classified agents, but recent work of Attias et al. identifies surprising properties of learnability when the agents genuinely improve in order to attain the desirable classification, such as smaller generalization error than standard PAC-learning. In this paper we characterize so-called learnability with improvements across multiple new axes. We introduce an asymmetric variant of minimally consistent concept classes and use it to provide an exact characterization of proper learning with improvements in the realizable setting. While prior work studies learnability only under general, arbitrary agent improvement regions, we give positive results for more natural Euclidean ball improvement sets. In particular, we characterize improper learning under a mild generative assumption on the data distribution. We further show how to learn in more challenging settings, achieving lower generalization error under well-studied bounded noise models and obtaining mistake bounds in realizable and agnostic online learning. We resolve open questions posed by Attias et al. for both proper and improper learning.