Round 1
One saved weekly assessment of The proton's partial lifetime for positron–neutral-pion decay is below 10^35 years., kept as it was published. It is an estimate from three models reading the evidence, not proof the hypothesis holds, and it did not set any price.
- Published
- Oct 19, 2026 07:05 PM EDT
- Estimate
- 27%
- Range the models covered
- 22–35%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
ef16005e9af3b9ccfd931098b2e4710953f4dade8226fc3e0044e6ad37e40c62
The hash commits to this round's recorded bytes. It does not prove the wording is sound or that the science is right.
openai/gpt-6.1-sol
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 no qualifying independent pair was identified. I interpret the hypothesis as the vacuum partial lifetime; bound-proton inference additionally requires propagated nuclear uncertainties, which the retrieved excerpts do not establish.
What would change this view: Two independent, nuclear-corrected measurements establishing a signal below the boundary, or 95% lower bounds above it, would resolve the central uncertainty.
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
The best limit I know of is Super-Kamiokande's p→e+π0 lower bound of about 2.4×10^34 yr at 90% CL (from memory; I did not run a live search). That limit sits below 10^35 yr, so it does not meet the NO criterion of a 95% lower bound ≥10^35. No experiment has established a decay signal, so the YES criterion is also unmet. Neither outcome is settled, and the true lifetime could lie on either side of 10^35 yr.
What would change this view: A peer-reviewed, independently replicated signal with a 95% interval wholly below 10^35 yr would move this to YES. Hyper-Kamiokande or DUNE bounds ≥10^35 yr would move it to NO.
No sources recorded for this answer.
x-ai/grok-4.7
Super-Kamiokande (PRD 102, 112011) found no p→e+π0 candidates and set only τ/B > 2.4×10^34 yr at 90% CL, short of 10^35 yr and not a measured lifetime. That meets neither a signal with a 95% interval wholly below 10^35 yr nor a 95% lower bound ≥ 10^35 yr, so the claim is unsettled.
What would change this view: A reproduced p→e+π0 signal with a 95% interval entirely below 10^35 yr, or two independent 95% bounds ≥ 10^35 yr, would decide it.
Round 1: score 0.27
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 no… Anthropic estimated 0.35. The best limit I know of is Super-Kamiokande's p→e+π0 lower bound of about 2.4×10^34 yr at 90% CL (from memory; I did not run a live search). That limit sits below 10^35 yr, so it does not meet the NO criterion of a 95%… xAI estimated 0.22. Super-Kamiokande (PRD 102, 112011) found no p→e+π0 candidates and set only τ/B > 2.4×10^34 yr at 90% CL, short of 10^35 yr and not a measured lifetime. That meets neither a signal with a 95% interval wholly below 10^35… The three models did not return a unanimous confident binary, so the market is not decided.
No audit bundle is recorded for this round. A bundle from another round is not substituted for it.