Round 5
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
- Nov 10, 2026 09:27 PM EST
- Estimate
- 22%
- Range the models covered
- 15–30%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
692e4e6aa678886a52a5ecdcef9ecea315a60f20cc3f098c987b832b3ca85ee0
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 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; neither terminal criterion is met. The retrieved record does not establish independently reproduced 95% results or permit a full audit of nuclear corrections and systematic uncertainties for the stipulated vacuum rate.
What 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/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 cannot meet the NO condition (a lower bound ≥10^35 yr) either. I did not run a live search, so this rests on my recollection of the published limits.
What 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.
No sources recorded for this answer.
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% lower bound ≥ 10^35, so neither terminal criterion is met.
What 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.
Round 5: score 0.22
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… Anthropic estimated 0.20. 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… xAI estimated 0.15. 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… The panel disagreed by 0.15, so read this average as soft. 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.