New particles make up most dark matter.
Do particles beyond the known particle model supply more than half of cosmic dark matter? Finding one candidate is not enough to establish its share.
No recorded prices yet. Trading prices appear once pools are live.
An AI dot opens that round's saved record. Each dot is one recorded reading, thinned to hourly for readability; the underlying samples are every few minutes. The line between two dots is not a measurement. How the AI estimate is made.How to read this chart
Weekly AI estimate
The average of three models reading the same evidence. It is an estimate, not proof the hypothesis holds, and it does not set the pool price.
- Range
- 60–80%
- Verdict
- Undecided
The panel's confident binary this round Undecided the models did not all agree
Market definition · YES, NO and evidence rules
This is the frozen contract wording. Read the YES and NO tests, the evidence requirements and the undecided cases before taking a position.
Canonical title
New particles supply more than half of cosmological dark matter.
Exact hypothesis · technical wording
Particles beyond the Standard Model contribute strictly more than 50% of the present cosmological nonbaryonic dark-matter mass density, averaged over the observable Universe. The denominator is the dark-matter component, not dark energy or total matter. Primordial black holes are excluded from the numerator; mixed particle/gravity explanations are allowed. The 50% boundary is a contract convention.
Each round reads the evidence that was public at a stated cutoff. Later evidence goes into a later round; the market itself has no expiry date.
How the evidence cutoff is fixed
A round only counts evidence published before its own cutoff time, and the round's number is that timestamp. So a round cannot borrow a later cutoff, and an earlier round's judgment cannot be reused for a later one. The hypothesis wording, the resolution criteria and the methodology identifier were hashed into the market account at creation, which is what stops any of them being edited afterwards.
Resolution criteria
YES: Independent non-gravitational particle detections establish a common species and calibrated abundance, and a joint cosmological abundance analysis has a 95% interval wholly above 0.50 for the combined beyond-Standard-Model particle fraction. NO: Independent measurements constrain that combined fraction with a 95% upper bound <= 0.50, including all species admitted by the established underlying particle model. Excluding WIMPs, one mass window, one coupling or one detector signal is not an exclusion of all particles; absent such a comprehensive bound remain UNDECIDED. Reference sources: PDG: Dark matter (https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/reviews/rpp2025-rev-dark-matter.pdf). Evidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.
The definition does not change when an AI estimate changes. Read the listing policy and this market's settlement status.
How each model argued
Three models read the same evidence and did not fully agree. Their average is 0.68.
This round ran under methodology panel-v9. Short excerpts are below; the round 5 page keeps the full answers, sources and raw responses. The current methodology and example requests do not reconstruct this historical round's exact request.
OpenAI UNDECIDED 0.80
openai/gpt-6.1-sol
Particle-dominated dark matter remains plausible, but gravitational abundance evidence does not identify its constituents. The checked sources establish neither independently replicated particle detections with a calibrated majority…
Would change this view: Independent particle detections with calibrated cosmological abundance above 50%, or comprehensive replicated bounds below it, would resolve the principal uncertainty.
Anthropic UNDECIDED 0.60
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
Most cosmologists expect dark matter to be mostly particles beyond the Standard Model. That is why the probability sits above 0.5. The criterion needs independent non-gravitational detections of a common species, and none exists. A…
Would change this view: Independent, reproduced non-gravitational detections of one particle species with a calibrated abundance would move this to YES. A comprehensive bound excluding all particle candidates would move it to NO.
Full explanation from Anthropic→xAI UNDECIDED 0.64
x-ai/grok-4.7
PDG 2025 treats WIMPs, axions, and sterile neutrinos as unconfirmed candidates; the 3.5 keV feature is disfavored and direct searches give limits, not a calibrated abundance. No independent non-gravitational detections put a joint 95%…
Would change this view: A replicated non-gravitational detection with a joint 95% BSM-particle fraction wholly above 0.50, or a comprehensive 95% bound ≤0.50, would flip the call.
What moved the number
This is a new contract, not a migrated position or a continuation of old forecast history. The initial 0.50 is an initialization convention, not an AI forecast or an assessed scientific probability. Reference links are background sources,…
OpenAI estimated 0.80. Particle-dominated dark matter remains plausible, but gravitational abundance evidence does not identify its constituents. The checked sources establish neither independently replicated particle detections with a……
This round's saved score, answers and sources →Live panel did not return all three estimates (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI failed or gave an unusable answer). A round is only live when all three are valid, so this round is a placeholder at the previous score rather than an average of two.
This round's saved score, answers and sources →OpenAI estimated 0.75. I interpret the fraction as cosmological nonbaryonic dark-matter mass, excluding primordial black holes from the numerator. Particle dominance is plausible, but the checked evidence supplies neither independently……
This round's saved score, answers and sources →AI estimate scheduled: an independent three-model panel reads the published definition and evidence every week. New positions are still closed for this market, so the estimate is here to read, not to trade against.
The evidence packet · 4 entries
What the panel was shown when this round ran. A row with no source link is a description only, and the panel is told so.
PDG: Dark matter
ContextAuthoritative review of candidates, gravitational evidence and model-dependent abundance/detection inference.
Source linkRequired positive observation
SupportingIndependent non-gravitational particle detections establish a common species and calibrated abundance, and a joint cosmological abundance analysis has a 95% interval wholly above 0.50 for the combined beyond-Standard-Model particle fraction.
Description only · no source link recordedRequired contrary observation
ContraryIndependent measurements constrain that combined fraction with a 95% upper bound <= 0.50, including all species admitted by the established underlying particle model. Excluding WIMPs, one mass window, one coupling or one detector signal is not an exclusion of all particles; absent such a comprehensive bound remain UNDECIDED.
Description only · no source link recordedEligibility and unresolved outcomes
MethodEvidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.
Description only · no source link recordedPast estimates
Every weekly estimate, newest first
| Date | Estimate | Range |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2026 09:38 PM EST | 68% | 60–80% |
| Nov 09, 2026 09:10 AM EST | 66% | no live reading |
| Nov 02, 2026 09:10 AM EST | 66% | no live reading |
| Oct 26, 2026 10:10 AM EDT | 66% | no live reading |
| Oct 19, 2026 07:00 PM EDT | 66% | 60–75% |
Discussion
Start a threadNo threads yet. Argue about the evidence, the panel, or whether the hypothesis is worded fairly.
Anyone can join the discussion. Sign in with a wallet to keep your threads together.