Dark energy stays close to a cosmological constant in the stated model.
Does dark energy stay within the contract’s stated tolerance across redshifts zero to two? The test uses a fixed cosmological model; it does not ask whether dark energy is exactly constant.
No recorded prices yet. Trading prices appear once pools are live.
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.
- Last live round
- Oct 19, 2026 06:59 PM EDT
The live panel was called but did not return three estimates · so this round did not return all three estimates and the number is a labelled stand-in
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
Dark energy stays within 0.05 of w = −1 over redshifts zero to two in the CPL model.
Exact hypothesis · technical wording
Within spatially flat general relativity with standard recombination, three active neutrinos of free summed mass, cold dark matter and CPL dark energy w(z)=w0+wa*z/(1+z), both |w0+1| <= 0.05 and |w0+(2/3)*wa+1| <= 0.05 hold. These endpoint conditions bound the entire interval 0 <= z <= 2. The tolerance and model family are contract conventions, not exact cosmological-constant identity.
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: A joint 95% confidence region in (w0,wa), with nuisance parameters profiled and systematic uncertainty included, lies entirely inside both inequalities in each independent combination of BAO, supernova and CMB data. NO: Each independent joint 95% region is disjoint from the intersection of the two inequalities. A region partly overlapping the intersection is UNDECIDED. Rejection of the stipulated cosmological framework makes this operational test inapplicable, not proof of dynamical dark energy; remain UNDECIDED and review invalidity under platform rules. Reference sources: DESI DR2 cosmological constraints (https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14738). 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
The live panel was called but did not return all three estimates. This round kept the previous estimate as a labelled placeholder, not an average of the answers that came back.
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 placeholder 0.10
local-fallback
The live panel was called for this round and did not return three usable answers, so this is a placeholder around the previous estimate rather than an average of model output. It is not an assessment.
Full explanation from OpenAI→Anthropic placeholder 0.13
local-fallback
The live panel was called for this round and did not return three usable answers, so this is a placeholder around the previous estimate rather than an average of model output. It is not an assessment.
Full explanation from Anthropic→xAI placeholder 0.16
local-fallback
The live panel was called for this round and did not return three usable answers, so this is a placeholder around the previous estimate rather than an average of model output. It is not an assessment.
Full explanation from xAI→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,…
Live panel did not return all three estimates (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 →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 0.20. DESI DR2 favors evolving dark energy, lowering support for the narrow endpoint bounds, but significance against exact ΛCDM does not establish exclusion of this finite region. I interpret independence as different……
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.
DESI DR2 cosmological constraints
ContextPrimary collaboration analysis; its dataset/model dependence is part of the uncertainty, not a terminal verdict.
Source linkRequired positive observation
SupportingA joint 95% confidence region in (w0,wa), with nuisance parameters profiled and systematic uncertainty included, lies entirely inside both inequalities in each independent combination of BAO, supernova and CMB data.
Description only · no source link recordedRequired contrary observation
ContraryEach independent joint 95% region is disjoint from the intersection of the two inequalities. A region partly overlapping the intersection is UNDECIDED. Rejection of the stipulated cosmological framework makes this operational test inapplicable, not proof of dynamical dark energy; remain UNDECIDED and review invalidity under platform rules.
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 09:40 PM EST | 13% | no live reading |
| Nov 09, 2026 09:08 AM EST | 13% | no live reading |
| Nov 02, 2026 09:08 AM EST | 13% | no live reading |
| Oct 26, 2026 10:08 AM EDT | 13% | no live reading |
| Oct 19, 2026 06:59 PM EDT | 13% | 3–20% |
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.