Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.29578

What Prediction-Market Contracts Reveal at Launch: Trading Volume and Dispute Risk

Abstract

Using a near-census of 802,863 resolved markets listed on Polymarket between January 2023 and May 2026, and only information available at listing (the market's title and description, named resolution source, and contract metadata), we predict lifetime trading volume and whether settlement is later disputed. Contract information predicts trading volume well (out-of-sample $R^2 = 0.747$ for log volume), and most of the signal is interpretable: market topic provides the largest gain ($+0.289$ $R^2$ over a $0.220$ contract-feature baseline), wording and resolution-rule design add smaller but measurable improvements ($+0.027$ combined), and neural text models add little beyond the interpretable features. This performance does not survive a period of platform change coinciding with a shift in listing formats: accuracy in predicting whether a market reaches \$1,000 falls from AUC $0.940$ under same-period evaluation to $0.577$ when training on past quarters and testing on later ones. The loss concentrates in markets whose question forms were absent from training (76.9% of test markets; on familiar forms the model still reaches $0.778$), and a decomposition attributes more of it to a changed relationship between contract characteristics and demand than to an outdated mapping from text to features. Dispute predictors are more stable but less precise: launch-time features rank dispute risk far better than chance (AUC $0.78$), yet at a 0.31% base rate precision is too low for case-by-case prediction (average precision $0.012$), so the scores suit ranking groups of markets rather than forecasting individual disputes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ahmed Mahrous, Roberto Di Pietro. 2026-10-21. What Prediction-Market Contracts Reveal at Launch: Trading Volume and Dispute Risk. https://doi.org/10.1145/3858063.3858742

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Market Efficiency in a Changing Asset Population: Mobility, Entry, and Survival over Cryptocurrency's Full History

Weak-form efficiency implies symmetry restrictions on the Markov chain governing movement across the cryptocurrency capitalisation distribution. We test them on the full listed population: 8,970 assets, 690 weekly cross-sections, 2013 to 2026, with entry, exit and survival observed rather than inferred. Symmetry is rejected in every era, but the asymmetry falls by seventy percent, and what converged is entry-driven compositional churn rather than coins' own valuations. The bottom decile earns 27.5% per week on paper and nothing among assets that trade, on capacity of $293,000. Compensation for neglect exists precisely where trading does not.

q-fin.ST↗

Conflicting History in Foundation Model Return Forecasts

Older observations can help a forecaster learn a predictive relationship while becoming misleading when that relationship changes. We study this tension using paired return histories that differ in older observations but share recent returns and the conditional distribution of the next return. Across five foundation-model forecasting procedures and three simulated processes, each evaluated on 1,024 independent replications, conflicting history reduces the probability of improving on zero in all 30 higher-signal comparisons. This loss of usefulness occurs despite successful signal recovery under stable conditions. A separate exploratory comparison on 56 assets finds that shortening inputs from 256 to 64 returns increases mean absolute error for every model by 1.77-4.58 basis points; neither length improves observed overall error over zero. The evidence distinguishes the ability to extract a signal from the ability to withstand conflicting history, while showing why context sensitivity alone does not justify discarding older data.

q-fin.ST↗

More Mentions, Less Information? Diagnosing Identity and Alignment in Reddit Embeddings for Volatility Forecasting

Since the 2021 GameStop short squeeze, r/WallStreetBets (WSB) has been associated with episodes of extreme volatility, and its text is increasingly used to forecast volatility. A model using only large language model (LLM) embeddings of WSB posts attains an out-of-sample $R^2$ of 0.13 for log realized variance. That number shows predictive power, but it does not reveal where the information comes from or how much the text adds beyond a firm's own volatility history. We answer these questions with a diagnostic protocol that nests embeddings on a heterogeneous autoregressive (HAR) benchmark, compares them with text-free firm-identity controls, shuffles the day-to-text pairing within firm-years to test day-specific alignment, and checks whether gains persist across periods and coverage groups. We apply the protocol to frozen LLM embeddings in a panel of 202,145 mentioned stock-days, using retrospective rolling out-of-sample tests over 2015-2022. The results indicate that most of the standalone fit reflects firm or firm-year information: on firms seen in training, a text-free firm baseline reaches $R^2 = 0.32$, shuffling preserves 89-92% of the standalone fit, and masking ticker strings reduces standalone $R^2$ to -0.005. Adding embeddings to HAR reduces equal-date MSE by 1.22% (95% CI [0.94, 1.49]). This small but statistically significant gain survives firm controls and ticker masking, but is largely eliminated by alignment shuffling. The gain is concentrated in 2015-2019 and is not distinguishable from zero in 2020-2022. Expanding coverage by 48% through off-hours and weekend posts adds stock-days with no reliable positive increment. More mentions therefore do not imply more incremental forecasting information.

q-fin.ST↗