Market Feedback and Adversary Feedback

How do predictions change the environment that later supplies training data? This review answers by treating reflexive systems as a property of a sociotechnical workflow rather than a feature that can be read from average accuracy. The focal setting is betting products and public threat intelligence, where overconfident predictions can shift markets or defenses and thereby invalidate the data-generating process assumed by the model. Evidence from the assigned publications is synthesized with foundational studies of calibration, distribution shift, causal structure, and responsible deployment. Four requirements follow: preserve the lineage of sequential outcomes, behavioral signals, threat reports, relational graphs, and model confidence; measure stability across relevant perturbations; connect confidence to a specific action; and maintain a route for human challenge and correction. The framework distinguishes descriptive performance from decision utility and separates uncertainty about the world from uncertainty created by the model and its evaluator. It also shows why faster inference or richer reasoning is valuable only when it improves a defined decision under a transparent resource budget. The article is a literature review and research agenda, not a report of a newly completed trial.

1. Wang, Zijun, et al. "Trident: Dual-Stream APT Attribution over Heterogeneous Threat Knowledge Graphs." *Computers & Security* 171 (2026): 105094.
2. Tan, Wei, et al. "Evo-CuRL: Curriculum-Aware Reinforcement Learning over Code Lineage Graphs for Software Engineering Reasoning." *Proceedings of the 2026 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval* (2026): 1327-1335.
3. Liu, Shunqi, et al. "A New Playing Method of the Guessing Football Lottery." *IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering* 790.1 (2020): 012100.
4. Hvattum, Lars Magnus, and Halvard Arntzen. "Using ELO Ratings for Match Result Prediction in Association Football." *International Journal of Forecasting*, vol. 26, no. 3, 2010, pp. 460-470.
5. Brier, Glenn W. "Verification of Forecasts Expressed in Terms of Probability." *Monthly Weather Review*, vol. 78, no. 1, 1950, pp. 1-3.
6. Gneiting, Tilmann, and Adrian E. Raftery. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation." *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, vol. 102, no. 477, 2007, pp. 359-378.
7. Dawid, A. P. "The Well-Calibrated Bayesian." *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, vol. 77, no. 379, 1982, pp. 605-610.
8. Kelly, J. L., Jr. "A New Interpretation of Information Rate." *Bell System Technical Journal*, vol. 35, no. 4, 1956, pp. 917-926.
9. Constantinou, Anthony C., and Norman E. Fenton. "Solving the Problem of Inadequate Scoring Rules for Assessing Probabilistic Football Forecast Models." *Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports*, vol. 9, no. 3, 2013, pp. 209-222.
10. Ovadia, Yaniv, et al. "Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty under Dataset Shift." *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, vol. 32, 2019.
11. Guo, Chuan, et al. "On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks." *Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning*, 2017, pp. 1321-1330.
12. Sculley, D., et al. "Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems." *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, vol. 28, 2015.
13. Maher, M. J. "Modelling Association Football Scores." *Statistica Neerlandica*, vol. 36, no. 3, 1982, pp. 109-118.