Skip to content
Preprint

WorldCup Arena: Prospective, Leakage-Free Evaluation of Frontier LLMs on a Live Tournament

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 22 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

Over the 39 days of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, six frontier LLMs were asked before every kickoff to fill in a seven-market prediction card for all 104 matches, plus 12 group winners and a pre-tournament outright pool; no answer existed when the question was asked, so the evaluation is leakage-free by construction rather than by filtering, and the frozen archive holds 4,494 scored predictions.

Abstract

Benchmarks that measure the forecasting ability of large language models are almost always retrospective: the event has happened, the answer is somewhere on the Web, and the evaluation must defend itself against memorisation. We report the opposite design. Over the 39 days of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, six frontier LLMs -- all with extended thinking and native server-side web search -- were asked before every kickoff, one match at a time, to fill in a seven-market prediction card for all 104 matches, plus 12 group winners and a pre-tournament outright pool; no answer existed when the question was asked, so the evaluation is leakage-free by construction rather than by filtering, and the frozen archive holds 4,494 scored predictions. What the tournament establishes is a set of behaviours the six systems share. On match outcome they average 63.9%, level with backing the bookmaker's favourite -- which is in fact what they usually do. They agree with one another far more often than they are right, so a majority vote adds nothing. They under-commit to draws and to goals, and crowd their scoreline picks onto a single prototypical result. Accuracy tracks how lopsided a fixture is rather than how much is known about it: it collapses in the closest ties, where the dossiers are richest, while questions about the tournament as a whole are answered well. On this task the current generation of frontier systems is not sharply differentiated: the standings hold up at the top and the bottom across the run and churn in the middle, and the margins stay narrow throughout. The briefing dossiers, fixtures and official results are released as a benchmark, together with the scoring code.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Gated Against One Model, Open to the Next: Option-Only Solvability in Legal Multiple-Choice Benchmarks

Multiple-choice benchmarks are graded on whether a model picks the right option, not on whether it needed the question. Measuring that gap takes care: a model answering A to most items scores above chance wherever the key sits at A, and reads as recognition when it is not. We measure it on UA-JudgeExam: 11,990 four-opt...

Volodymyr Ovcharov · 1 citation
#artificial intelligence Review Sep 2026

LLM-as-a-Judge Is Not an Oracle: Why Self-Improving Agents Need Deterministic Guardrails

ProCTOR is described, a Teacher-Student loop in which a stateful orchestrator holds all tool access, stateless subagents diagnose failures and draft mutations they cannot apply, and a Teacher grades those mutations under five deterministic guardrails: hermetic sandboxes, capability-disjoint roles, acceptance checks tha...

Vansh Wahi · 1 citation · ⚡1
Preprint Aug 2026

Winning by Peeking: Unenforced Budgets and Test-Set Selection Inflate Short-Budget AutoML Comparisons

Comparisons between AutoML systems at short time budgets -- tens of seconds rather than hours -- are common in tool READMEs and workshop papers, and they are easy to get wrong. We report a case study in which a simple AutoML engine, Orcetra, appeared to beat FLAML and AutoGluon on 513 OpenML datasets, winning 57.1% of...

Guilin Zhang, Kai Zhao · 0 citations
Review Aug 2026

Judging Is Not Enumerating: Silent Omissions in LLM-Authored Acceptable Sets

This work measures the capability that role assumes and finds it lacking under the protocol the role is usually deployed with, one-shot greedy authoring with no test-time reasoning.

Wen-Hui Chen, Jian-Lin Chen, Zi-Yao Lin et al. · 1 citation
Preprint Aug 2026

ICM Out! Better Tournament Strategy from Computed Continuations, vs. Solvers and LLMs

The Independent Chip Model (ICM) converts tournament chips into reference prize equity, and policies are routinely constructed against those values. Because ICM reads only stack sizes, it omits action order, blind obligations, and seat rotation, and it does not price the elimination pressure a big stack puts on the sho...

Bo-Ning Li, Long-Bo Huang · 2 citations
#machine learning Preprint Aug 2026

Thinking in a Low-Resource Language: What SFT Builds, What RL Fixes, What Accuracy Cannot See

Take three frontier mixture-of-experts models (Alibaba, OpenAI, NVIDIA; 3.6-4.0B active parameters each) and fine-tune them to reason in a low-resource language. On accuracy benchmarks almost nothing happens, and the benchmark itself is noise at this scale: changing only the random seed moves the score by 7.7 points, m...

Ayoub Kirouane, Christos Petrocheilos · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.