A specific proton decay rate exceeds the stated limit.
Does proton decay into a positron and a neutral pion have a partial mean lifetime below 10³⁵ years? This tests one decay channel, not whether protons ever decay.
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
- 15–30%
- 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
The proton's partial lifetime for positron–neutral-pion decay is below 10^35 years.
Exact hypothesis · technical wording
For protons at rest in vacuum, the partial mean lifetime tau/B for p -> e+ pi0 is strictly less than 10^35 Julian years (365.25 days each). Bound-proton experiments may infer the vacuum rate only with nuclear corrections and their uncertainty propagated. This is a bounded test of baryon-number violation, not the claim that the proton eventually decays in any channel; the lifetime 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: Each independent analysis reports a 95% interval for the specified partial mean lifetime wholly below 10^35 Julian years, with a decay signal established rather than only a limit. NO: Each independent analysis reports a 95% lower bound >= 10^35 Julian years for this channel. This excludes only the stated rate/channel, not proton decay in general. Conflicting results or a boundary-crossing interval remain UNDECIDED. Reference sources: PDG: Baryon properties and decay limits (https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/tables/rpp2025-sum-baryons.pdf); PDG: Conservation laws (https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/reviews/rpp2025-rev-conservation-laws.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 0.22.
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 0.30
openai/gpt-6.1-sol
The strongest verified search found no signal and reported a 90% lower limit of 2.4×10^34 years, leaving lifetimes on either side of 10^35 years possible. PDG’s October 2025 review still cites that result, with no positive observation;…
Would change this view: Independent decay detections with nuclear uncertainties propagated and 95% lifetime intervals wholly below 10^35 years would strongly raise my estimate.
Anthropic UNDECIDED 0.20
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
No experiment has seen a p→e+π0 signal, so the YES condition (a 95% interval wholly below 10^35 yr with a signal established) is not met. Current limits, about 2.4×10^34 yr from Super-Kamiokande, are well below 10^35 yr. They therefore…
Would change this view: A peer-reviewed, independently reproduced p→e+π0 signal would move this toward YES. Hyper-Kamiokande setting a lower bound ≥10^35 yr would move it toward NO.
Full explanation from Anthropic→xAI UNDECIDED 0.15
x-ai/grok-4.7
PDG 2025 and Super-Kamiokande (Takenaka et al., PRD 2020) report no p→e+π0 candidates and a 90% CL lower limit τ/B > 2.4×10^34 yr, below 10^35 yr. That is neither an established decay signal with a 95% interval wholly below 10^35 nor a 95%…
Would change this view: A peer-reviewed signal plus an independent 95% interval wholly below 10^35 yr, or two such lower bounds ≥ 10^35 yr, would settle it.
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 0.30. The strongest verified search found no signal and reported a 90% lower limit of 2.4×10^34 years, leaving lifetimes on either side of 10^35 years possible. PDG’s October 2025 review still cites that result, with no……
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 0.25. The strongest verified search found no signal, disfavoring shorter lifetimes but leaving lifetimes between its limit and 10^35 years unresolved. Its published 90% bound cannot satisfy the specified 95% criterion, and…
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 · 5 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: Baryon properties and decay limits
ContextMode-specific limits are partial mean lifetimes, not total lifetimes.
Source linkRequired positive observation
SupportingEach independent analysis reports a 95% interval for the specified partial mean lifetime wholly below 10^35 Julian years, with a decay signal established rather than only a limit.
Description only · no source link recordedRequired contrary observation
ContraryEach independent analysis reports a 95% lower bound >= 10^35 Julian years for this channel. This excludes only the stated rate/channel, not proton decay in general. Conflicting results or a boundary-crossing interval 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 09:27 PM EST | 22% | 15–30% |
| Nov 09, 2026 09:28 AM EST | 27% | no live reading |
| Nov 02, 2026 09:28 AM EST | 27% | no live reading |
| Oct 26, 2026 10:28 AM EDT | 27% | no live reading |
| Oct 19, 2026 07:05 PM EDT | 27% | 22–35% |
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.