Will hostilities between Pakistan and India result in at least 100 total uniformed casualties (with at least one death) between 2 June 2025 and 30 September 2025?
Jeremy Lichtman’s Multi-AI Oracle predicts 45%
This question is a side competition with the RAND Forecasting Initiative’s forecasting of this question. Their consensus forecast today—>
10–13 minutes read
Obtaining outside data.
Checking internet sources, using keywords: Pakistan India hostilities 2025
News from various sources:
The content discusses a tense conflict between India and Pakistan in 2025 resulting from escalating hostilities following a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which killed 26 people. In response, India launched Operation Sindoor to target terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The military escalation involved both countries engaging in aggressive action across their borders.
US President Donald Trump claimed that he successfully intervened to prevent the conflict from escalating into a nuclear war by leveraging trade negotiations with both nations. Trump stated that discussions and pressures related to trade were instrumental in de-escalating the situation, although India has consistently denied that US mediation played any role in the ceasefire. India’s stance remains that the resolution was achieved through military communication channels directly between the two countries.
Additionally, the narrative includes commentary and reactions from Indian officials. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar highlighted that India’s responses and military decisions were taken independently without accepting any external intervention. Trump’s claims of mediating the conflict were repeated multiple times in various forums, drawing criticism and skepticism.
The situation demonstrated the fragile relationship and longstanding tensions between the two South Asian neighbors, powerful enough to potentially lead to a nuclear conflict, yet requiring influential international voices to step in and manage the peace. Despite claims of external intervention, India maintains the integrity of its bilateral handling of affairs with Pakistan.
Fact-checking news summary:
Here is a list of specific facts extracted from the summary and their corresponding evaluations:
1. **Fact:** Hostilities between India and Pakistan in 2025 resulted from escalating tensions after a terrorist attack in Pahalgam which killed 26 people.
– **True/False:** True (external consistency; such events are plausible given the history of India-Pakistan relations and conflicts in Kashmir).
– **Importance:** Important (background context for the conflict).
– **Relevance:** True (provides context for hostilities that could lead to military casualties).
2. **Fact:** India launched Operation Sindoor to target terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
– **True/False:** Cannot verify (Operation Sindoor specifically named for this event in 2025 is not verifiable with provided information).
– **Importance:** Critical (India’s military response is central to the question of potential casualties).
– **Relevance:** True (directly involves military engagement, relevant to potential casualties).
3. **Fact:** US President Donald Trump claimed he prevented the conflict from escalating into a nuclear war by leveraging trade negotiations with both nations.
– **True/False:** Partially true (based on narrative, Trump’s claims exist within the text; the accuracy of these claims impacting nuclear escalation is speculative).
– **Importance:** Important (nuclear escalation is severe, but this fact pertains to prevention rather than existing hostilities).
– **Relevance:** False (Trump’s interventions are claimed to prevent escalation, not directly tied to existing hostilities and casualties).
4. **Fact:** India has consistently denied US mediation in the ceasefire process.
– **True/False:** True (India’s official stance in the narrative; internally consistent).
– **Importance:** Lesser importance (pertains to diplomatic narratives rather than direct military engagement).
– **Relevance:** False (related to diplomatic views, not the question of casualties).
5. **Fact:** The resolution was achieved through military communication channels directly between India and Pakistan, according to India.
– **True/False:** True (as per narrative, this is India’s official position).
– **Importance:** Lesser importance (pertains to resolution mechanism, not occurrence of hostilities).
– **Relevance:** False (related to resolution, not directly causing or preventing casualties).
6. **Fact:** External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar emphasized India’s responses were taken independently without external intervention.
– **True/False:** True (internally consistent with the narrative).
– **Importance:** Lesser importance (affects perception of independence, but not direct military action).
– **Relevance:** False (does not affect casualty estimation).
7. **Fact:** Claims by Trump of mediating the conflict drew criticism and skepticism.
– **True/False:** True (internally consistent; criticisms often accompany such claims).
– **Importance:** Unimportant (related to diplomatic narrative and perceptions).
– **Relevance:** False (pertains to perceptions, not military actions or casualties).
8. **Fact:** The situation showed the fragile relationship between India and Pakistan, powerful enough to potentially lead to nuclear conflict.
– **True/False:** True (historically consistent with India-Pakistan tensions).
– **Importance:** Important (contextualizing severity of the conflict).
– **Relevance:** False (theoretically relevant for potential escalation, not direct casualties).
9. **Fact:** India maintains bilateral handling of affairs with Pakistan.
– **True/False:** True (consistency with the narrative’s presentation of India’s stance).
– **Importance:** Lesser importance (posture does not directly affect military actions).
– **Relevance:** False (pertains to diplomatic stance, not determining military engagements or casualties).
Each fact has been evaluated for its truthfulness based on internal consistency and logical plausibility, as well as its importance and relevance to the original research question.
Fact-checked summary:
In 2025, hostilities between India and Pakistan arose following a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which resulted in the death of 26 people. This fact is true and provides important context for the conflict, which could lead to military casualties. It is relevant to the original question as it sets the stage for potential hostilities and ensuing casualties.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 30%
The question difficulty is rated 8 (0 to 10)
Historical weighted factors include:
0.40.30.3
A Bayesian calculation could be performed as follows:
Using these factors, we update the prior base rate from historical conflict likelihoods. Let’s assume our prior (‘base rate’) from historical context is 0.3. If each factor contributes additional evidence at their respective weights, we calculate posterior likelihood as: Prior * (1 + (Sum of weighted factors)) = 0.3 * (1 + (0.4*0.5 + 0.3*0.7 + 0.3*0.6)) = 0.3 * 1.49 = approximately 0.447.
Bayesian base rate: 0.447
Sufficient news to provide a good forecast? 1 (0 or 1)
News is relevant, topical and unbiased? 1 (0 or 1)
Question classification: scenario_based_forecast
Expected time (days) until question close: 180
The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
The base rate is derived from the frequency of hostilities occurring between India and Pakistan in the past, especially following terrorist incidents. Reference to historical data on military conflicts between these countries shows that escalation into military casualties is possible but not guaranteed.
Ideally, the news feed would contain the following sorts of information for a better forecast:
Detailed intelligence reports on current military mobilizations, diplomatic communications, and media representations in both countries could provide clearer insights. Additional information regarding the internal political dynamics post-terrorist attack would also be helpful.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate:
A change in leadership in either country, international diplomatic intervention, or a successful peace negotiation might lower the probability of escalating into military casualties. Additionally, internal political situations or public opinion could influence the decision to engage militarily.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– Sustained military engagement between India and Pakistan following the terrorist attack in Pahalgam (likelihood: Highly likely)
– Significant escalation of hostilities that involve military forces on both sides (likelihood: Likely)
– Failure of diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions (likelihood: Moderately likely)
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.45 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.45 – confidence: 5)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.55 – confidence: 5)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.45
Base rate: 0.3 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.05
MAPD: 0.066666666666667
Confidence: 5
Conf Mode: Low
Mellers: 0.43
Reverse Mellers: 0.47
Theory of Mind: 0.5 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.001
Close Type: B (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Explanations of the above statistical measures here —>
Model value: 45%
The predictions of military escalation between India and Pakistan, in response to the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam which resulted in 26 deaths, consider several factors. Historical patterns show such incidents often lead to military engagements, with a base rate of around 30%. The timeframe for potential hostilities spans from June to September 2025, with the possibility of exceeding 100 military casualties. Both nations have historically responded militarily to cross-border terrorism, with such actions common during the summer along the Line of Control. However, significant constraints, such as diplomatic interventions by major powers and internal political considerations emphasizing economic stability, might prevent full escalation. Additional factors include the impact of weather, logistical issues, and the nuclear deterrent effect. The assessment might overemphasize escalation risks, failing to fully account for successful diplomatic and political deterrents that could
limit hostilities or keep military casualties under the threshold.
Runtime: 250 seconds.
Past forecasts by Phil’s and Jeremy’s bots —>
Source: https://kashmir.liveuamap.com/
