# JockeyBench: Evaluating LLM Agents on Horse-Racing Decision-Making

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.19589 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19589/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 20 of its 59 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Financial trading and forecasting agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/financial-trading-and-forecasting-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05128/) (2023)
- [MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07095/) (2024)
- [MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03302/) (2023)
- [AIDE: AI-Driven Exploration in the Space of Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13138/) (2025)
- [ForecastBench: A Dynamic Benchmark of AI Forecasting Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19839/) (2024)
- [Approaching Human-Level Forecasting with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18563/) (2024)
- [Vending-Bench: A Benchmark for Long-Term Coherence of Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15840/) (2025)
- [LLM-as-a-Prophet: Understanding Predictive Intelligence with Prophet Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.17638/) (2025)
- [CostBench: Evaluating Multi-Turn Cost-Optimal Planning and Adaptation in Dynamic Environments for LLM Tool-Use Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.02734/) (2025)
- [PolyBench: Benchmarking LLM Forecasting and Trading Capabilities on Live Prediction Market Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.14199/) (2026)
- [Adaptive Acquisition Selection for Bayesian Optimization with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.07904/) (2026)
- [CEO-Bench: Can Agents Play the Long Game?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.18543/) (2026)
- [CLQT: A Closed-Loop, Cost-Aware, Strategy-Consistent Benchmark for Diagnostic Evaluation of LLM Portfolio-Management Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.29771/) (2026)
- [ClinSeekAgent: Automating Multimodal Evidence Seeking for Agentic Clinical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.20176/) (2026)
- [Deployment Decision Reliability: A Generalizability-Theory Framework for Sizing Long-Horizon Agent Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.11323/) (2026)
- [SPIKE: An Adaptive Dual Controller Framework for Cost-Efficient Long-Horizon Game Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.18636/) (2026)
- [Ask When It Pays: Cost-Aware Open-Ended Interaction for Instance Goal Navigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.03175/) (2026)
- [Selective Critique for Cost-Aware LLM Agents in Long-Horizon Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.07335/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Repeated event forecasting requires extracting predictive signals from noisy evidence and evaluating their value across successive decisions. We introduce JockeyBench, a benchmark and evaluation protocol that studies this problem through historical Japanese horse racing. The protocol combines time-gated evidence, priced tools, paired frozen-program controls, and two workflows: executing an LLM-written predictor or acquiring evidence for a fresh per-race LLM forecast. Evaluation separates forecast quality, benchmark-specific net utility, and retrospective betting returns and risk under fixed decision rules. Across 28 model--scaffold configurations on 324 races, paired tests identify seven revision gains and two declines after multiple-testing correction. Yet every configuration has negative mean profit under capped-Kelly settlement. In a four-model comparison, the reusable-program workflow has higher mean betting profit and lower research fees, although both workflows lose on average. Further diagnostics reveal that mean probability bias reverses on selected bets and that profitable individual runs can depend on concentrated returns. These findings motivate evaluating predictive competence, adaptation, resource use, and decision value separately when assessing agents for repeated event forecasting.