date_resolve_at
stringlengths 10
10
| date_begin
stringlengths 10
10
| extracted_urls
stringlengths 2
7.19k
| question_type
stringclasses 3
values | community_predictions
stringlengths 45
72.7k
| url
stringlengths 34
126
| background
stringlengths 1
4.95k
| gpt_3p5_category
stringclasses 11
values | resolution_criteria
stringlengths 43
5.42k
| is_resolved
bool 1
class | date_close
stringlengths 10
10
| question
stringlengths 31
259
| data_source
stringclasses 5
values | resolution
float64 0
1
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2016-02-01 | 2015-10-02 | [] | binary | [["2015-10-02", 0.69], ["2015-11-03", 0.72], ["2015-11-03", 0.75], ["2015-11-04", 0.54], ["2015-11-04", 0.54], ["2015-11-06", 0.555], ["2015-12-03", 0.554], ["2015-12-03", 0.574], ["2015-12-03", 0.58], ["2015-12-03", 0.574], ["2015-12-05", 0.595], ["2015-12-05", 0.61], ["2015-12-09", 0.612], ["2015-12-10", 0.582], ["2015-12-11", 0.584], ["2015-12-12", 0.589]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/1/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) re-opened in mid September after a significant upgrade.
Designed with 10x greater sensitivity and a wider range of covered frequencies than the original LIGO, advanced LIGO should, according to its designers, have an "enhanced physics reach that during its first several hours of operation will exceed the integrated observations of the 1 year LIGO Science Run."
A full description of the experiment in gory detail can be found here.
Calculations of the expected detection rates suggest tens and potentially hundreds of detectable events per year under reasonable assumptions about neutron star and other types of binaries (and of course assuming General Relativity is correct, etc.)
Will the LIGO experiment publicly announce a 5-sigma (or equivalent) discovery of astrophysical gravitational waves by Jan 31, 2016? | true | 2015-12-15 | Will advanced LIGO announce discovery of gravitational waves by Jan. 31 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-02-28 | 2015-10-26 | ["https://sma.nasa.gov/LaunchVehicle/assets/spacex-falcon-9-v1.2-data-sheet.pdf"] | binary | [["2015-10-26", 0.84], ["2015-12-03", 0.795], ["2015-12-05", 0.787], ["2015-12-05", 0.765], ["2015-12-08", 0.782], ["2015-12-09", 0.772], ["2015-12-09", 0.793], ["2015-12-10", 0.784], ["2015-12-11", 0.774], ["2015-12-16", 0.769], ["2015-12-16", 0.769], ["2015-12-17", 0.759], ["2015-12-17", 0.759], ["2015-12-20", 0.758], ["2015-12-22", 0.762], ["2015-12-22", 0.765], ["2015-12-31", 0.757], ["2015-12-31", 0.763], ["2016-01-02", 0.759], ["2016-01-04", 0.732], ["2016-01-05", 0.746], ["2016-01-07", 0.736], ["2016-01-07", 0.739], ["2016-01-08", 0.712], ["2016-01-08", 0.716], ["2016-01-09", 0.71], ["2016-01-11", 0.713], ["2016-01-11", 0.717], ["2016-01-11", 0.726], ["2016-01-12", 0.724], ["2016-01-12", 0.73], ["2016-01-12", 0.707], ["2016-01-14", 0.718], ["2016-01-17", 0.715], ["2016-01-17", 0.706], ["2016-01-17", 0.709], ["2016-01-17", 0.701], ["2016-01-18", 0.696], ["2016-01-20", 0.697], ["2016-01-20", 0.691], ["2016-01-20", 0.694], ["2016-01-20", 0.699], ["2016-01-20", 0.685], ["2016-01-20", 0.693], ["2016-01-21", 0.696], ["2016-01-21", 0.702], ["2016-01-21", 0.698], ["2016-01-21", 0.697], ["2016-01-21", 0.68], ["2016-01-21", 0.674], ["2016-01-21", 0.664], ["2016-01-22", 0.659], ["2016-01-22", 0.647], ["2016-01-22", 0.637], ["2016-01-22", 0.639], ["2016-01-22", 0.643], ["2016-01-22", 0.63], ["2016-01-22", 0.631], ["2016-01-23", 0.631], ["2016-01-23", 0.638], ["2016-01-24", 0.641], ["2016-01-24", 0.64], ["2016-01-25", 0.635], ["2016-01-25", 0.634], ["2016-01-26", 0.632], ["2016-01-26", 0.626], ["2016-01-26", 0.632], ["2016-01-26", 0.632], ["2016-01-26", 0.623], ["2016-01-26", 0.626], ["2016-01-26", 0.626], ["2016-01-26", 0.624], ["2016-01-26", 0.626], ["2016-01-27", 0.626], ["2016-01-27", 0.631], ["2016-01-27", 0.628], ["2016-01-27", 0.63], ["2016-01-27", 0.633], ["2016-01-27", 0.632], ["2016-01-28", 0.633], ["2016-01-28", 0.633], ["2016-01-28", 0.633], ["2016-01-28", 0.632], ["2016-01-28", 0.635], ["2016-01-28", 0.636], ["2016-01-28", 0.63], ["2016-01-28", 0.63], ["2016-01-28", 0.628], ["2016-01-29", 0.627], ["2016-01-29", 0.625], ["2016-01-29", 0.625]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/2/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets are designed to be re-used after landing vertically on a floating barge-based landing site. To date, these landings have not been fully successful.
Will SpaceX, by Feb 28, 2016, land a Falcon 9 well enough so that it sustains little enough damage that it can be re-used?
As of mid-November, the SpaceX launch schedule lists approximately eight upcoming Falcon 9 Launches in 2015 or early 2016. | true | 2016-01-30 | Will SpaceX successfully land a Falcon 9 rocket on a barge by February 28, 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-04-23 | 2015-10-26 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-04", 0.12], ["2016-01-05", 0.083], ["2016-01-09", 0.114], ["2016-01-12", 0.124], ["2016-01-19", 0.117], ["2016-01-20", 0.112], ["2016-01-23", 0.132], ["2016-01-26", 0.136], ["2016-01-28", 0.201], ["2016-01-31", 0.204], ["2016-02-02", 0.199], ["2016-02-04", 0.211], ["2016-02-06", 0.207], ["2016-02-09", 0.208], ["2016-02-11", 0.2], ["2016-02-15", 0.197], ["2016-02-18", 0.18], ["2016-02-20", 0.176], ["2016-02-24", 0.172], ["2016-02-28", 0.173], ["2016-03-01", 0.173], ["2016-03-03", 0.173], ["2016-03-06", 0.173], ["2016-03-09", 0.182], ["2016-03-13", 0.198], ["2016-03-18", 0.197], ["2016-03-21", 0.199], ["2016-03-24", 0.206], ["2016-03-27", 0.204], ["2016-03-30", 0.211], ["2016-04-02", 0.21], ["2016-04-06", 0.211], ["2016-04-07", 0.219], ["2016-04-13", 0.217], ["2016-04-15", 0.222], ["2016-04-17", 0.227], ["2016-04-19", 0.224], ["2016-04-20", 0.221], ["2016-04-26", 0.221], ["2016-04-29", 0.217], ["2016-05-03", 0.215], ["2016-05-04", 0.215], ["2016-05-09", 0.214], ["2016-05-12", 0.212], ["2016-05-16", 0.212], ["2016-05-19", 0.21], ["2016-05-25", 0.209], ["2016-05-28", 0.21], ["2016-05-31", 0.209], ["2016-06-05", 0.212], ["2016-06-07", 0.216], ["2016-06-14", 0.216], ["2016-06-14", 0.216], ["2016-06-20", 0.215], ["2016-06-23", 0.215], ["2016-06-27", 0.214], ["2016-06-30", 0.216], ["2016-07-01", 0.216], ["2016-07-03", 0.215], ["2016-07-06", 0.215], ["2016-07-10", 0.215], ["2016-07-13", 0.214], ["2016-07-17", 0.214], ["2016-07-20", 0.214], ["2016-07-23", 0.215], ["2016-07-26", 0.215], ["2016-07-29", 0.204], ["2016-08-02", 0.208], ["2016-08-05", 0.216], ["2016-08-07", 0.216], ["2016-08-09", 0.212], ["2016-08-11", 0.21], ["2016-08-13", 0.211], ["2016-08-15", 0.21], ["2016-08-17", 0.211], ["2016-08-18", 0.21], ["2016-08-21", 0.208], ["2016-08-23", 0.207], ["2016-08-24", 0.204], ["2016-08-27", 0.205], ["2016-08-30", 0.204], ["2016-08-31", 0.204], ["2016-09-02", 0.202], ["2016-09-05", 0.202], ["2016-09-06", 0.202], ["2016-09-09", 0.202], ["2016-09-12", 0.202], ["2016-09-14", 0.201], ["2016-09-17", 0.207], ["2016-09-19", 0.214], ["2016-09-23", 0.212], ["2016-09-26", 0.212], ["2016-09-29", 0.211], ["2016-10-02", 0.205], ["2016-10-05", 0.207], ["2016-10-07", 0.209], ["2016-10-09", 0.209], ["2016-10-11", 0.21], ["2016-10-14", 0.21], ["2016-10-17", 0.209], ["2016-10-18", 0.209]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/5/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks has publicly announced that it is developing compact fusion energy generation devices.
In their announcemend dated 10/15/14 they suggested a one-year timeframe for developing a test, and a 5-year timeframe for a prototype device. Similar predictions were made in a recent article.
As of 1/2/16 this effort is still featured on the Lockheed Martin website.
WIll they announce a successful test of a break-even device by April 15, 2019? | true | 2016-10-18 | Will Lockheed Martin and Skunkworks announce a successful test of a break-even compact fusion reactor by April 2019? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-06-16 | 2015-10-26 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-09", 0.3], ["2015-12-09", 0.233], ["2015-12-09", 0.25], ["2015-12-09", 0.24], ["2015-12-10", 0.25], ["2015-12-10", 0.254], ["2015-12-12", 0.251], ["2015-12-12", 0.248], ["2015-12-15", 0.266], ["2015-12-21", 0.264], ["2015-12-21", 0.265], ["2015-12-22", 0.267], ["2016-01-01", 0.27], ["2016-01-03", 0.319], ["2016-01-05", 0.297], ["2016-01-05", 0.282], ["2016-01-07", 0.277], ["2016-01-09", 0.284], ["2016-01-12", 0.271], ["2016-01-20", 0.283], ["2016-01-20", 0.307], ["2016-01-21", 0.312], ["2016-01-21", 0.315], ["2016-01-22", 0.302], ["2016-01-22", 0.306], ["2016-01-23", 0.31], ["2016-01-26", 0.308], ["2016-01-27", 0.305], ["2016-01-27", 0.303], ["2016-01-27", 0.296], ["2016-01-28", 0.296], ["2016-01-28", 0.319], ["2016-01-31", 0.321], ["2016-01-31", 0.317], ["2016-02-02", 0.312], ["2016-02-02", 0.314], ["2016-02-03", 0.308], ["2016-02-04", 0.308], ["2016-02-04", 0.308], ["2016-02-05", 0.307], ["2016-02-07", 0.301], ["2016-02-08", 0.296], ["2016-02-10", 0.294], ["2016-02-10", 0.293], ["2016-02-10", 0.291], ["2016-02-15", 0.289], ["2016-02-15", 0.287], ["2016-02-16", 0.288], ["2016-02-17", 0.287], ["2016-02-18", 0.285], ["2016-02-19", 0.286], ["2016-02-19", 0.286], ["2016-02-19", 0.287], ["2016-02-20", 0.286], ["2016-02-20", 0.285], ["2016-02-20", 0.282], ["2016-02-21", 0.277], ["2016-02-24", 0.277], ["2016-02-24", 0.276], ["2016-02-26", 0.273], ["2016-02-28", 0.272], ["2016-02-28", 0.273], ["2016-03-02", 0.269], ["2016-03-03", 0.267], ["2016-03-04", 0.266], ["2016-03-07", 0.265], ["2016-03-07", 0.266], ["2016-03-10", 0.264], ["2016-03-10", 0.263], ["2016-03-11", 0.262], ["2016-03-11", 0.259], ["2016-03-11", 0.26], ["2016-03-12", 0.261], ["2016-03-13", 0.271], ["2016-03-13", 0.269], ["2016-03-13", 0.269], ["2016-03-14", 0.269], ["2016-03-16", 0.269], ["2016-03-16", 0.267], ["2016-03-17", 0.267], ["2016-03-22", 0.265], ["2016-03-22", 0.267], ["2016-03-26", 0.267], ["2016-03-26", 0.266], ["2016-03-27", 0.266], ["2016-03-30", 0.276], ["2016-04-04", 0.276], ["2016-04-05", 0.276], ["2016-04-07", 0.276], ["2016-04-07", 0.275], ["2016-04-10", 0.276], ["2016-04-11", 0.274], ["2016-04-11", 0.264], ["2016-04-12", 0.264], ["2016-04-13", 0.271], ["2016-04-13", 0.271], ["2016-04-14", 0.271], ["2016-04-14", 0.27], ["2016-04-14", 0.27], ["2016-04-15", 0.267], ["2016-04-15", 0.258]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/6/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | The FAA has for several years been developing a set of regulations governing the use of unmanned aeriel systems (UASs, or "drones"), but has repeatedly missed deadlines to finalize those rules. Current regulations allow consumer use of "model aircraft" under certain conditions, and it was recently announced that one of those conditions would be registration of the drone.
Current FAA rules do not allow commercial operation of UASs except by special license. Comprehensive regulation specifying conditions under which commerical UASs can operate beyond line-of-sight of their operators (or autonomously) would open a host of industry uses of UAVs in aerial reconnaisance, delivery, etc.
Will such regulation be finalized by the FAA by June 15, 2016? | true | 2016-04-15 | The FAA to soon open the door to commercial use of unmanned aerial systems? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-12-01 | 2015-10-26 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-12", 0.8], ["2015-11-12", 0.8], ["2015-12-03", 0.825], ["2015-12-05", 0.833], ["2015-12-06", 0.825], ["2015-12-07", 0.71], ["2015-12-07", 0.708], ["2015-12-09", 0.713], ["2015-12-09", 0.713], ["2015-12-09", 0.648], ["2015-12-10", 0.661], ["2015-12-10", 0.674], ["2015-12-10", 0.674], ["2015-12-11", 0.681], ["2015-12-11", 0.658], ["2015-12-16", 0.615], ["2015-12-20", 0.614], ["2015-12-20", 0.626], ["2015-12-22", 0.629], ["2015-12-22", 0.629], ["2015-12-22", 0.629], ["2015-12-22", 0.629], ["2015-12-24", 0.651], ["2015-12-24", 0.651], ["2015-12-27", 0.628], ["2015-12-27", 0.633], ["2015-12-30", 0.644], ["2015-12-30", 0.644], ["2015-12-30", 0.644], ["2015-12-30", 0.644], ["2015-12-31", 0.647], ["2016-01-04", 0.657], ["2016-01-05", 0.672], ["2016-01-05", 0.676], ["2016-01-07", 0.678], ["2016-01-07", 0.673], ["2016-01-07", 0.676], ["2016-01-07", 0.672], ["2016-01-09", 0.67], ["2016-01-12", 0.673], ["2016-01-17", 0.665], ["2016-01-21", 0.661], ["2016-01-21", 0.671], ["2016-01-21", 0.664], ["2016-01-22", 0.66], ["2016-01-24", 0.644], ["2016-01-25", 0.644], ["2016-01-26", 0.644], ["2016-01-26", 0.64], ["2016-01-26", 0.64], ["2016-01-26", 0.64], ["2016-01-26", 0.635], ["2016-01-26", 0.626], ["2016-01-26", 0.629], ["2016-01-27", 0.628], ["2016-01-27", 0.621], ["2016-01-27", 0.621], ["2016-01-28", 0.62], ["2016-01-28", 0.62], ["2016-01-28", 0.623], ["2016-01-28", 0.622], ["2016-01-31", 0.622], ["2016-02-01", 0.621], ["2016-02-02", 0.621], ["2016-02-02", 0.621], ["2016-02-02", 0.62], ["2016-02-03", 0.611], ["2016-02-04", 0.608], ["2016-02-04", 0.607], ["2016-02-04", 0.606], ["2016-02-05", 0.602], ["2016-02-05", 0.598], ["2016-02-07", 0.594], ["2016-02-08", 0.601], ["2016-02-08", 0.602], ["2016-02-08", 0.599], ["2016-02-09", 0.599], ["2016-02-09", 0.604], ["2016-02-10", 0.601], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-10", 0.594], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-11", 0.593], ["2016-02-11", 0.589], ["2016-02-11", 0.585], ["2016-02-11", 0.584], ["2016-02-12", 0.582], ["2016-02-13", 0.577], ["2016-02-13", 0.577], ["2016-02-14", 0.576], ["2016-02-14", 0.575], ["2016-02-14", 0.572], ["2016-02-14", 0.574], ["2016-02-14", 0.575], ["2016-02-15", 0.578]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/7/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The cost of sequencing a human genome has been falling at a rate considerably faster than Moore's law since the first genome was sequenced in 2001, according to the NIH.
This cost reduction has, however, occurred in fits and starts, with periods of plateau punctuated by significant cost reductions.
Will the cost plateau for several years at approximately $1000 per genome, or fall to below $500 USD by June 30, 2016?
The question resolves affirmative if there is an entry for June or earlier in the table provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute putting the cost below $500, and resolve negatively if the table has an entry of for July 2016 or later with a cost exceeding $500. | true | 2016-02-15 | Will the cost of sequencing a human genome fall below $500 by mid 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-30 | 2015-10-26 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-03", 0.2], ["2015-11-04", 0.28], ["2015-12-03", 0.22], ["2015-12-05", 0.21], ["2015-12-05", 0.198], ["2015-12-09", 0.217], ["2015-12-10", 0.207], ["2015-12-15", 0.21], ["2015-12-20", 0.204], ["2015-12-21", 0.198], ["2016-01-01", 0.189], ["2016-01-05", 0.194], ["2016-01-05", 0.171], ["2016-01-09", 0.173], ["2016-01-11", 0.175], ["2016-01-12", 0.154], ["2016-01-21", 0.148], ["2016-01-22", 0.157], ["2016-01-24", 0.159], ["2016-01-25", 0.16], ["2016-01-26", 0.157], ["2016-01-26", 0.152], ["2016-01-27", 0.155], ["2016-01-28", 0.179], ["2016-01-29", 0.175], ["2016-01-31", 0.174], ["2016-02-01", 0.171], ["2016-02-02", 0.172], ["2016-02-03", 0.168], ["2016-02-04", 0.168], ["2016-02-04", 0.169], ["2016-02-05", 0.167], ["2016-02-07", 0.165], ["2016-02-08", 0.163], ["2016-02-10", 0.162], ["2016-02-11", 0.165], ["2016-02-11", 0.161], ["2016-02-12", 0.164], ["2016-02-15", 0.161], ["2016-02-16", 0.159], ["2016-02-16", 0.158], ["2016-02-17", 0.155], ["2016-02-19", 0.156], ["2016-02-19", 0.161], ["2016-02-20", 0.161], ["2016-02-20", 0.161], ["2016-02-21", 0.162], ["2016-02-21", 0.16], ["2016-02-23", 0.158], ["2016-02-24", 0.156], ["2016-02-28", 0.165], ["2016-02-28", 0.165], ["2016-03-02", 0.163], ["2016-03-03", 0.164], ["2016-03-07", 0.164], ["2016-03-07", 0.165], ["2016-03-11", 0.166], ["2016-03-11", 0.166], ["2016-03-12", 0.162], ["2016-03-15", 0.172], ["2016-03-16", 0.17], ["2016-03-18", 0.169], ["2016-03-22", 0.167], ["2016-03-23", 0.167], ["2016-03-27", 0.168], ["2016-03-30", 0.179], ["2016-04-02", 0.179], ["2016-04-07", 0.178], ["2016-04-10", 0.178], ["2016-04-12", 0.177], ["2016-04-14", 0.176], ["2016-04-15", 0.175], ["2016-04-16", 0.175], ["2016-04-17", 0.175], ["2016-04-18", 0.174], ["2016-04-19", 0.173], ["2016-04-25", 0.171], ["2016-04-26", 0.17], ["2016-05-09", 0.168], ["2016-05-12", 0.168], ["2016-05-12", 0.167], ["2016-05-16", 0.167], ["2016-05-17", 0.166], ["2016-05-23", 0.165], ["2016-05-31", 0.165], ["2016-06-07", 0.165], ["2016-06-08", 0.164], ["2016-06-12", 0.165], ["2016-06-13", 0.162], ["2016-06-17", 0.161], ["2016-06-17", 0.16], ["2016-06-18", 0.159], ["2016-06-20", 0.16], ["2016-06-21", 0.158], ["2016-06-25", 0.159], ["2016-06-26", 0.159], ["2016-06-28", 0.159], ["2016-06-29", 0.155], ["2016-06-30", 0.153], ["2016-06-30", 0.143], ["2016-07-01", 0.143]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/8/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Conjecture: There are infinitely many primes p such that p + 2 is also prime.
In the last few years, the upper bound N for the statement “There are infinitely many primes that differ by at most N” has been reduced from 70,000,000 to 246, and down to 12 with other assumptions.
The question is resolved positively if a proof of the conjecture is published in a major mathematics journal. | true | 2016-07-01 | Will the Twin Prime Conjecture be positively resolved in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-08-23 | 2015-10-30 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-02", 0.69], ["2015-11-14", 0.445], ["2015-12-03", 0.497], ["2015-12-05", 0.51], ["2015-12-06", 0.498], ["2015-12-07", 0.45], ["2015-12-09", 0.439], ["2015-12-09", 0.439], ["2015-12-09", 0.409], ["2015-12-10", 0.441], ["2015-12-20", 0.46], ["2015-12-20", 0.472], ["2015-12-21", 0.438], ["2015-12-21", 0.432], ["2015-12-22", 0.453], ["2015-12-27", 0.491], ["2015-12-31", 0.509], ["2016-01-01", 0.492], ["2016-01-01", 0.492], ["2016-01-03", 0.481], ["2016-01-04", 0.477], ["2016-01-05", 0.452], ["2016-01-07", 0.442], ["2016-01-07", 0.437], ["2016-01-07", 0.446], ["2016-01-09", 0.44], ["2016-01-11", 0.451], ["2016-01-12", 0.459], ["2016-01-12", 0.452], ["2016-01-13", 0.452], ["2016-01-13", 0.456], ["2016-01-17", 0.454], ["2016-01-20", 0.449], ["2016-01-20", 0.45], ["2016-01-20", 0.468], ["2016-01-20", 0.46], ["2016-01-20", 0.467], ["2016-01-21", 0.453], ["2016-01-21", 0.459], ["2016-01-21", 0.449], ["2016-01-21", 0.449], ["2016-01-21", 0.449], ["2016-01-21", 0.445], ["2016-01-22", 0.439], ["2016-01-23", 0.429], ["2016-01-25", 0.428], ["2016-01-26", 0.431], ["2016-01-26", 0.427], ["2016-01-26", 0.425], ["2016-01-26", 0.426], ["2016-01-26", 0.422], ["2016-01-27", 0.419], ["2016-01-27", 0.419], ["2016-01-27", 0.419], ["2016-01-28", 0.414], ["2016-01-28", 0.414], ["2016-01-28", 0.417], ["2016-01-28", 0.412], ["2016-01-28", 0.413], ["2016-01-28", 0.415], ["2016-01-30", 0.418], ["2016-01-31", 0.419], ["2016-01-31", 0.416]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/9/ | In late 2014 Google [announced] a deep learning system that could automatically generate a descriptive caption of an arbitrary photograph.
A significantly greater challenge is to provide an understandable and comparably accurate description of the events taking place in a short video (without audio included). | Science & Tech | Will a working version of such a system be publicly announced and demonstrated by July 1, 2016? For success, the system should act on a diverse set of short videos similar to these, and should be comparable in accuracy to the accuracy of Google's image captioning when it was first announced. | true | 2016-02-01 | Will AI systems that can generate a synopsis of a viewed video soon exist? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-02-15 | 2015-11-02 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-03", 0.75], ["2015-11-04", 0.65], ["2015-11-06", 0.5]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/11/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X) is an experimental device built at the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics to test the "stellarator" deisgn of nuclear fusion reactor.
The primary benefit of the stellarator design is to allow prolonged confinement, relative to Tokomak designs that can run only in short pulses. The W7-X was designed to run for up to 30 minutes.
Magnet testing was completed in July 2015, and regulatory approval to bein operations is expected in in early November.
Will the W7-X collaboration report that the rector has successfully confined its plasma for at least 10 minutes by February 15, 2016? | true | 2015-11-30 | Will the experimental Wendelstein 7-X stellarator fusion device be a success? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-18 | 2015-11-02 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-19", 0.25], ["2015-12-03", 0.225], ["2015-12-05", 0.217], ["2015-12-06", 0.213], ["2015-12-08", 0.22], ["2015-12-09", 0.284], ["2015-12-10", 0.286], ["2015-12-10", 0.29], ["2015-12-12", 0.292], ["2015-12-21", 0.278], ["2015-12-21", 0.273], ["2015-12-24", 0.251], ["2015-12-24", 0.251], ["2015-12-27", 0.232], ["2016-01-01", 0.223], ["2016-01-03", 0.231], ["2016-01-03", 0.246], ["2016-01-05", 0.261], ["2016-01-05", 0.264], ["2016-01-13", 0.261], ["2016-01-20", 0.253], ["2016-01-21", 0.241], ["2016-01-26", 0.237], ["2016-01-26", 0.233], ["2016-01-26", 0.232], ["2016-01-27", 0.228], ["2016-01-27", 0.224], ["2016-01-28", 0.225], ["2016-01-28", 0.222], ["2016-01-31", 0.221], ["2016-02-01", 0.219], ["2016-02-02", 0.221], ["2016-02-03", 0.217], ["2016-02-04", 0.218], ["2016-02-04", 0.22], ["2016-02-05", 0.224], ["2016-02-05", 0.221], ["2016-02-09", 0.222], ["2016-02-09", 0.222], ["2016-02-10", 0.222], ["2016-02-11", 0.221], ["2016-02-12", 0.22], ["2016-02-13", 0.217], ["2016-02-15", 0.215], ["2016-02-15", 0.213], ["2016-02-15", 0.202], ["2016-02-16", 0.202], ["2016-02-16", 0.203], ["2016-02-16", 0.202], ["2016-02-17", 0.2], ["2016-02-17", 0.199], ["2016-02-19", 0.203], ["2016-02-19", 0.205], ["2016-02-20", 0.206], ["2016-02-20", 0.208], ["2016-02-21", 0.208], ["2016-02-22", 0.205], ["2016-02-22", 0.203], ["2016-02-23", 0.201], ["2016-02-24", 0.201], ["2016-02-28", 0.208], ["2016-02-28", 0.208], ["2016-02-29", 0.208], ["2016-03-04", 0.207], ["2016-03-04", 0.207], ["2016-03-07", 0.207], ["2016-03-08", 0.209], ["2016-03-11", 0.21], ["2016-03-12", 0.21], ["2016-03-13", 0.211], ["2016-03-13", 0.218], ["2016-03-15", 0.217], ["2016-03-16", 0.216], ["2016-03-17", 0.217], ["2016-03-18", 0.215], ["2016-03-20", 0.215], ["2016-03-22", 0.213], ["2016-03-22", 0.211], ["2016-03-27", 0.208], ["2016-03-30", 0.217], ["2016-04-01", 0.219], ["2016-04-06", 0.218], ["2016-04-07", 0.217], ["2016-04-14", 0.215], ["2016-04-15", 0.214], ["2016-04-19", 0.213], ["2016-04-19", 0.213], ["2016-04-22", 0.216], ["2016-04-26", 0.216], ["2016-04-26", 0.214], ["2016-04-26", 0.212], ["2016-05-03", 0.21], ["2016-05-06", 0.211], ["2016-05-07", 0.21], ["2016-05-10", 0.211], ["2016-05-12", 0.211], ["2016-05-12", 0.211], ["2016-05-13", 0.205], ["2016-05-13", 0.204], ["2016-05-14", 0.204], ["2016-05-15", 0.204]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/12/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | While it is very difficult to combine quantum mechanics and gravity into a single theory of quantum gravity, it is widely believed that gravity is quantum mechanical -- in particular, that the gravitational field can exist in a quantum superposition of two configurations. However, this has never been directly tested. (The detection of gravitational waves in the CMB probably would have counted, but that detection is in serious doubt.)
Recently a table-top expermiment has been proposed that uses low-lying gravity-dependent energy states of an ultracold but macroscopic system to probe whether a gravitational superposition exists; see a useful explication of the idea here.
Will the proposed experiment -- or a close variant -- be performed by November 15, 2016 and submitted for publication or posted to a pre-print archive? | true | 2016-05-15 | Will quantized gravity soon be tested in the lab? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-01 | 2015-11-02 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-02", 0.2], ["2015-11-03", 0.3], ["2015-11-04", 0.25], ["2015-11-06", 0.262], ["2015-11-09", 0.24], ["2015-12-03", 0.267], ["2015-12-05", 0.293], ["2015-12-05", 0.325], ["2015-12-07", 0.333], ["2015-12-07", 0.354], ["2015-12-09", 0.391], ["2015-12-09", 0.4], ["2015-12-10", 0.403], ["2015-12-19", 0.392], ["2015-12-20", 0.414], ["2015-12-21", 0.411], ["2015-12-28", 0.408]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/13/ | Although far from human level in many respects, artificially intelligent (AI) systems and autonomous agents of greatly increasing sophistication are entering society in the form of, for example, automated trading, autonomous vehicles, robots, and autonomous weapons.
Such systems are beginning to make "decisions" that could save or cost human lives. For example:
Recently, an industrial robot in Germany, through a programming error, [fatally injured factory worker].
Autonomous vehicles are likely to save many lives as compared to human drivers, but could in principle malfunction, or in rare cases [be forced to "choose" to injure one person in order to save others] (a real-life version of the philosophical [trolley problem].)
[Autonomous weapons] engineered to to choose and engage targets without human intervention exist, and although they are (presently, formally) eschewed by most militaries, seem likely to be deployed in coming years unless prevented by [international agreement]. | Security & Defense | By March 1, 2016, will one of the top 25 news outlets by media traffic publish a story reporting that a "robot", "autonomous" system, or "AI" system, though an error or "choice", or failure to act appropriately, has directly caused physical harm to come to a human? | true | 2015-12-31 | In the coming months, will a robot/AI injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-01-15 | 2015-11-03 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-03", 0.32], ["2015-11-03", 0.32], ["2015-11-04", 0.36], ["2015-11-04", 0.377], ["2015-11-04", 0.347], ["2015-11-13", 0.262], ["2015-11-13", 0.262], ["2015-12-03", 0.29], ["2015-12-05", 0.308], ["2015-12-06", 0.35], ["2015-12-07", 0.381], ["2015-12-08", 0.349], ["2015-12-09", 0.349], ["2015-12-09", 0.349], ["2015-12-09", 0.349], ["2015-12-10", 0.346], ["2015-12-11", 0.348], ["2015-12-15", 0.322], ["2015-12-17", 0.317], ["2015-12-17", 0.309], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-21", 0.335], ["2015-12-30", 0.301], ["2015-12-30", 0.284], ["2015-12-31", 0.288], ["2015-12-31", 0.276]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/14/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | NASA's Kepler Mission discovered thousands of planets, but the mission ended in May 2013, when a second of the spacecraft's four reaction wheels failed.
The K2 Mission has repurposed the Kepler spacecraft to perform successive 80-day photometric observations of selected star fields in Earth's ecliptic plane. For bright stars, K2's precision limits are similar to those of the original Kepler Mission. The first planet detection from the K2 Mission has recently been published.
Here's the question:
Will a peer-reviewed publication based on K2 photometry announcing the discovery of a potentially habitable planet appear prior to January 1, 2016?
Here are some details:
For purposes of evaluation, a habitable planet is one that has a value greater than USD 1,000,000, as defined by the habitable planet valuation formula.
In the above equation, V is the V-band apparent magnitude of the host star. The planetary effective temperature is calculated using (following Batalha et al, we use f=1 and A=0.3), and the planetary mass is estimated using | true | 2016-01-01 | Will NASA's K2 Mission detect a potentially habitable planet in 2015? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-14 | 2015-11-04 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-09", 0.08], ["2015-11-26", 0.045], ["2015-12-03", 0.043], ["2015-12-05", 0.035], ["2015-12-06", 0.03], ["2015-12-07", 0.057], ["2015-12-08", 0.064], ["2015-12-08", 0.064], ["2015-12-09", 0.062], ["2015-12-09", 0.062], ["2015-12-09", 0.064], ["2015-12-10", 0.079], ["2015-12-10", 0.079], ["2015-12-11", 0.08], ["2015-12-11", 0.077], ["2015-12-18", 0.075], ["2015-12-20", 0.075], ["2015-12-27", 0.07], ["2015-12-27", 0.069], ["2015-12-27", 0.069], ["2015-12-31", 0.065], ["2016-01-01", 0.079], ["2016-01-03", 0.075], ["2016-01-04", 0.075], ["2016-01-05", 0.096], ["2016-01-07", 0.106], ["2016-01-12", 0.103], ["2016-01-21", 0.107], ["2016-01-21", 0.111], ["2016-01-21", 0.114], ["2016-01-22", 0.117], ["2016-01-23", 0.114], ["2016-01-26", 0.113], ["2016-01-27", 0.116], ["2016-01-28", 0.119], ["2016-01-28", 0.122], ["2016-01-28", 0.149], ["2016-01-28", 0.148], ["2016-01-29", 0.15], ["2016-01-29", 0.146], ["2016-01-29", 0.147], ["2016-01-31", 0.148], ["2016-01-31", 0.147], ["2016-01-31", 0.148]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/15/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Hawking's famous black hole information paradox, first formulated in his 1976 paper, concerns a conflict between the reversibility of known fundamental physical laws and the irreversibility of black hole formation and evaporation.
The Standard Model of particle physics, General Relativity, quantum and classical mechanics, and most extant proposed extensions of these theories are "unitary," meaning that all of the information in a system at some time can in principle be recovered from the same system at a later time, by running the laws of physics "backwards." Black holes appear to be a possible exception: Hawking's calculation of black hole evaporation predicts an information-free spectrum of radiation emitted, no matter what was thrown into the black hole.
Whether black holes violate unitary -- as claimed by Hawking -- has been fiercely controversial for decades. In 2004, Hawking conceded that unitarity is preserved, based on arguments related to the AdS/CFT correspondence. But even if this verdict is accepted, there is no widely-accepted explanation of how unitarity is preserved in detail, or how information actually escapes a black hole during evaporation.
In September 2015, Hawking claimed in a short paper to have made a breakthrough on this topic, and presented his ideas at a meeting, which also involved extensive discussions with eminent relativists Andy Strominger and Gary Gibbons. The central claim is that "the information is stored in a supertranslation associated with the shift of the horizon that the ingoing particles caused." Is this the key to unraveling the paradox?
The question will be resolved as "yes" if, by November 15, 2016, both Hawking's paper receives more than 100 citations, and any two of Leonard Susskind, John Preskill, and Raphael Bousso make statements in writing that the information paradox is essentially solved, and that the solution can be cast in terms of supertranslations defined on the horizon. | true | 2016-02-01 | Does Stephen Hawking's September paper contain the essence of a solution to the black hole information paradox? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-06-02 | 2015-11-05 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-06", 0.25], ["2015-11-07", 0.175], ["2015-12-03", 0.157], ["2015-12-05", 0.148], ["2015-12-06", 0.138], ["2015-12-09", 0.143], ["2015-12-09", 0.14], ["2015-12-10", 0.14], ["2015-12-11", 0.138], ["2015-12-20", 0.133], ["2016-01-01", 0.137], ["2016-01-04", 0.143], ["2016-01-04", 0.144], ["2016-01-05", 0.134], ["2016-01-05", 0.127], ["2016-01-09", 0.14], ["2016-01-17", 0.131], ["2016-01-19", 0.155], ["2016-01-19", 0.154], ["2016-01-20", 0.146], ["2016-01-21", 0.158], ["2016-01-21", 0.163], ["2016-01-25", 0.162], ["2016-01-26", 0.163], ["2016-01-27", 0.156], ["2016-01-28", 0.154], ["2016-01-28", 0.158], ["2016-01-28", 0.152], ["2016-01-31", 0.157], ["2016-02-01", 0.155], ["2016-02-02", 0.155], ["2016-02-02", 0.158], ["2016-02-03", 0.158], ["2016-02-03", 0.153], ["2016-02-04", 0.149], ["2016-02-04", 0.149], ["2016-02-04", 0.15], ["2016-02-08", 0.15], ["2016-02-09", 0.153], ["2016-02-09", 0.152], ["2016-02-10", 0.154], ["2016-02-15", 0.151], ["2016-02-15", 0.152], ["2016-02-16", 0.15], ["2016-02-16", 0.154], ["2016-02-16", 0.155], ["2016-02-17", 0.156], ["2016-02-17", 0.16], ["2016-02-19", 0.161], ["2016-02-19", 0.163], ["2016-02-19", 0.16], ["2016-02-19", 0.162], ["2016-02-20", 0.161], ["2016-02-20", 0.163], ["2016-02-20", 0.161], ["2016-02-20", 0.16], ["2016-02-22", 0.157], ["2016-02-23", 0.158], ["2016-02-28", 0.159], ["2016-02-28", 0.17], ["2016-03-02", 0.167], ["2016-03-02", 0.168], ["2016-03-04", 0.167], ["2016-03-09", 0.169], ["2016-03-11", 0.17], ["2016-03-12", 0.169], ["2016-03-13", 0.17], ["2016-03-15", 0.169], ["2016-03-16", 0.17], ["2016-03-16", 0.169], ["2016-03-17", 0.167], ["2016-03-18", 0.169], ["2016-03-18", 0.168], ["2016-03-20", 0.169], ["2016-03-25", 0.17], ["2016-03-27", 0.168], ["2016-03-29", 0.17], ["2016-03-30", 0.17], ["2016-03-30", 0.18], ["2016-04-01", 0.179], ["2016-04-01", 0.179], ["2016-04-09", 0.179], ["2016-04-09", 0.183], ["2016-04-12", 0.181], ["2016-04-14", 0.181], ["2016-04-15", 0.181], ["2016-04-15", 0.181], ["2016-04-21", 0.177], ["2016-04-21", 0.178], ["2016-04-21", 0.176], ["2016-04-21", 0.175], ["2016-04-23", 0.173], ["2016-04-24", 0.173], ["2016-04-26", 0.174], ["2016-04-26", 0.175], ["2016-04-26", 0.174], ["2016-04-26", 0.164], ["2016-04-27", 0.164], ["2016-04-28", 0.163], ["2016-04-29", 0.162], ["2016-04-29", 0.163]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/16/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In graph theory, two graphs are isomorphic if there is a one-to-one correspondence between their vertex sets (details here). The computational task of determining whether two graphs are isomorphic is known as the graph isomorphism problem. The problem arises in many applications, for example, in electronic design automation when one needs a demonstration that two circuit representations are equivalent.
The question of whether graph isomorphism is always solvable in polynomial time is a major open problem in computer science. The problem belongs to NP, but it has not yet been determined whether it is P or NP-complete.
A new breakthrough in the graph isomorphism problem is implied by the abstract of a theoretical computer science seminar scheduled for Nov. 10th, 2015 at the University of Chicago.
By June 1, 2017, will the graph isomorphism problem have been proved to always be solvable in polynomial time? | true | 2016-05-01 | Is Graph Isomorphism solvable in Polynomial Time? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-07-10 | 2015-11-06 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-19", 0.1], ["2015-12-03", 0.125], ["2015-12-05", 0.133], ["2015-12-06", 0.15], ["2015-12-07", 0.13], ["2015-12-07", 0.133], ["2015-12-08", 0.146], ["2015-12-09", 0.143], ["2015-12-10", 0.14], ["2015-12-11", 0.14], ["2015-12-16", 0.137], ["2015-12-20", 0.138], ["2015-12-23", 0.132], ["2015-12-23", 0.132], ["2015-12-31", 0.129], ["2016-01-01", 0.12], ["2016-01-01", 0.112], ["2016-01-03", 0.129], ["2016-01-05", 0.122], ["2016-01-05", 0.118]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/17/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Superparticles are partners to the standard model model particles such as protons, electrons, and photons, which would exist in supersymmetric models of fundamental physics.
Looking for signatures of supersymmetry is one of the primary goals of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which restarted recently for its second run.
The question will be considered resolved in the affirmative if a bet between Frank Wilczek and Garrett Lisi, refereed by Max Tegmark, is resolved in favor of Wilczek. | true | 2016-01-15 | Will superparticles be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider by July 8, 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-07-10 | 2015-11-07 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-19", 0.75], ["2015-12-03", 0.775], ["2015-12-05", 0.8], ["2015-12-06", 0.802], ["2015-12-07", 0.702], ["2015-12-07", 0.685], ["2015-12-08", 0.707], ["2015-12-08", 0.707], ["2015-12-09", 0.682], ["2015-12-10", 0.673], ["2015-12-10", 0.678], ["2015-12-11", 0.64], ["2015-12-11", 0.635], ["2015-12-11", 0.614], ["2015-12-11", 0.614], ["2015-12-16", 0.605], ["2015-12-16", 0.559], ["2015-12-17", 0.564], ["2015-12-19", 0.551], ["2015-12-20", 0.522], ["2015-12-20", 0.525], ["2015-12-21", 0.522], ["2015-12-21", 0.519], ["2015-12-22", 0.516], ["2015-12-22", 0.516], ["2015-12-22", 0.503], ["2015-12-27", 0.488], ["2015-12-27", 0.488], ["2015-12-30", 0.478], ["2016-01-01", 0.463], ["2016-01-03", 0.452], ["2016-01-04", 0.451], ["2016-01-05", 0.435], ["2016-01-05", 0.437], ["2016-01-07", 0.433], ["2016-01-07", 0.426], ["2016-01-07", 0.416], ["2016-01-07", 0.405], ["2016-01-09", 0.4], ["2016-01-11", 0.395], ["2016-01-13", 0.392], ["2016-01-15", 0.394], ["2016-01-15", 0.385], ["2016-01-16", 0.383], ["2016-01-20", 0.373], ["2016-01-20", 0.364], ["2016-01-20", 0.365], ["2016-01-21", 0.35], ["2016-01-21", 0.343], ["2016-01-21", 0.336], ["2016-01-21", 0.331], ["2016-01-22", 0.328], ["2016-01-22", 0.327], ["2016-01-23", 0.328], ["2016-01-23", 0.336], ["2016-01-24", 0.335], ["2016-01-25", 0.333], ["2016-01-26", 0.33], ["2016-01-26", 0.326], ["2016-01-26", 0.323], ["2016-01-27", 0.32], ["2016-01-27", 0.315], ["2016-01-27", 0.312], ["2016-01-27", 0.311], ["2016-01-27", 0.307], ["2016-01-28", 0.308], ["2016-01-28", 0.317], ["2016-01-28", 0.314], ["2016-01-30", 0.313], ["2016-01-31", 0.311], ["2016-01-31", 0.307], ["2016-02-01", 0.305], ["2016-02-01", 0.306], ["2016-02-02", 0.302], ["2016-02-02", 0.302], ["2016-02-03", 0.298], ["2016-02-04", 0.299], ["2016-02-04", 0.298], ["2016-02-04", 0.297], ["2016-02-05", 0.295], ["2016-02-05", 0.295], ["2016-02-08", 0.294], ["2016-02-08", 0.289], ["2016-02-09", 0.287], ["2016-02-09", 0.286], ["2016-02-09", 0.282], ["2016-02-10", 0.281], ["2016-02-10", 0.277], ["2016-02-11", 0.274], ["2016-02-11", 0.271], ["2016-02-11", 0.267], ["2016-02-11", 0.263], ["2016-02-12", 0.261], ["2016-02-12", 0.26], ["2016-02-13", 0.258], ["2016-02-13", 0.255], ["2016-02-14", 0.255], ["2016-02-15", 0.253], ["2016-02-15", 0.253], ["2016-02-15", 0.249], ["2016-02-16", 0.247]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/20/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | A major recent advance in genetic engineering has occurred in the past several years with the discovery of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats), a bacterial DNA sequence that codes for a protein (Cas9) and RNA combination that can locate a specific DNA sequence and splice the DNA strand at that location. This enables dramatically simplified genetic editing and engineering relative to recombinant DNA technologies.
The CRISPR system has been used successfully in complex organisms including adult mice and embryonic humans.
The ease and low cost of CRISPR techniques have opened the doors to the creation of novel organisms both by professional biologists and also by amateur self-described 'biohackers.' For example, there is now an "iGEM" yearly competition for DIY genetic engineering (modification of existing organisms) and synthetic biology (generation of qualitatively novel organisms.) Another example is a current crowdfunded campaign to produce low-cost 'biohack at home' kits.
By July 1, 2016, will a verified incident occur in which a non-professional (neither employed by a company, government or university, nor a PhD student) genetically engineer an organism that is then released (or escapes) into the wild where it becomes distinct and detectable part of the population? | true | 2016-02-16 | By July 1, 2016 will a 'biohacker' create a new life form that enters the ecosystem? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-02-18 | 2015-11-08 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-08", 0.08], ["2015-12-09", 0.095], ["2015-12-09", 0.107], ["2015-12-09", 0.118], ["2015-12-09", 0.134], ["2015-12-10", 0.142], ["2015-12-10", 0.153], ["2015-12-10", 0.159], ["2015-12-12", 0.16], ["2015-12-12", 0.163], ["2015-12-12", 0.164], ["2015-12-12", 0.164], ["2015-12-15", 0.163], ["2015-12-20", 0.162], ["2015-12-21", 0.215], ["2015-12-22", 0.217], ["2015-12-26", 0.203]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/22/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | There has been significant interest in the imminent advent of autonomous lethal weapons, which would select, engage, and harm targets that they have chosen according to some pre-assigned mission or criteria. Most major military powers formally claim to eschew such weapons, but there is little question that they are under active development.
A recent open letter signed by over 3000 AI researchers has argued that an arms race in autonomous offensive weapons would likely lead to their widespread use and that "Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group." The letter calls for an international agreement pre-emptively banning such weapons.
Several advocacy groups including the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots have also called for such a ban, and the issue has been discussed at the UN, most recently at a meeting on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Although there appears to be strong support in the AI research community to avoid such an arms race, there is an active debate, with some arguing against such a ban.
The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), the major professional organization for AI researchers, has discussed the issue at past meetings, and hosted a debate in 2015 regarding these weapons. But the AAAI as an organization has not taken any formal position on autonomous weapons.
When the AAAI next meets in February 12-17 2016, will it vote on and adopt a formal position (of any sort) on autonomous weapons? | true | 2016-01-01 | Will the AI's major professional society take a position on "killer robots"? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-06-07 | 2015-11-08 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-12", 0.6], ["2015-11-23", 0.52], ["2015-12-03", 0.447], ["2015-12-05", 0.422], ["2015-12-05", 0.398], ["2015-12-07", 0.432], ["2015-12-08", 0.448], ["2015-12-10", 0.436], ["2015-12-11", 0.432], ["2015-12-16", 0.427], ["2015-12-19", 0.413], ["2015-12-22", 0.423], ["2015-12-24", 0.435], ["2016-01-01", 0.418], ["2016-01-01", 0.418], ["2016-01-03", 0.413], ["2016-01-04", 0.421], ["2016-01-05", 0.396], ["2016-01-07", 0.381], ["2016-01-07", 0.369], ["2016-01-09", 0.38], ["2016-01-14", 0.398], ["2016-01-16", 0.407], ["2016-01-21", 0.41], ["2016-01-23", 0.403], ["2016-01-25", 0.413], ["2016-01-27", 0.432], ["2016-01-28", 0.45], ["2016-01-30", 0.452], ["2016-01-31", 0.452], ["2016-01-31", 0.45], ["2016-02-01", 0.451], ["2016-02-02", 0.452], ["2016-02-03", 0.446], ["2016-02-04", 0.447], ["2016-02-05", 0.448], ["2016-02-07", 0.443], ["2016-02-08", 0.452], ["2016-02-09", 0.454], ["2016-02-11", 0.45], ["2016-02-12", 0.445], ["2016-02-13", 0.447], ["2016-02-13", 0.445], ["2016-02-15", 0.443], ["2016-02-16", 0.443], ["2016-02-17", 0.45], ["2016-02-18", 0.451], ["2016-02-19", 0.445], ["2016-02-20", 0.45], ["2016-02-20", 0.45], ["2016-02-22", 0.439], ["2016-02-23", 0.439], ["2016-02-24", 0.439], ["2016-02-28", 0.443], ["2016-02-29", 0.439], ["2016-02-29", 0.438], ["2016-03-02", 0.439], ["2016-03-03", 0.441], ["2016-03-05", 0.442], ["2016-03-09", 0.448], ["2016-03-10", 0.448], ["2016-03-12", 0.458], ["2016-03-13", 0.46], ["2016-03-14", 0.46], ["2016-03-15", 0.457], ["2016-03-16", 0.453], ["2016-03-18", 0.453], ["2016-03-19", 0.453], ["2016-03-21", 0.452], ["2016-03-22", 0.44], ["2016-03-23", 0.437], ["2016-03-24", 0.437], ["2016-03-24", 0.437], ["2016-03-26", 0.435], ["2016-03-27", 0.436], ["2016-03-29", 0.435], ["2016-03-30", 0.443], ["2016-04-01", 0.44], ["2016-04-04", 0.439], ["2016-04-07", 0.438], ["2016-04-09", 0.436], ["2016-04-12", 0.437], ["2016-04-13", 0.437], ["2016-04-14", 0.432], ["2016-04-15", 0.433], ["2016-04-16", 0.432], ["2016-04-18", 0.432], ["2016-04-18", 0.431], ["2016-04-26", 0.431], ["2016-04-26", 0.43], ["2016-05-01", 0.43], ["2016-05-02", 0.43], ["2016-05-03", 0.427], ["2016-05-09", 0.431], ["2016-05-12", 0.433], ["2016-05-16", 0.434], ["2016-05-16", 0.434], ["2016-05-18", 0.433], ["2016-06-05", 0.435], ["2016-06-06", 0.433], ["2016-06-07", 0.428]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/23/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | A major recent advance in genetic engineering has occurred in the past several years with the discovery of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats), a bacterial DNA sequence that codes for a protein (Cas9) and RNA combination that can locate a specific DNA sequence and splice the DNA strand at that location. This enables dramatically simplified genetic editing and engineering relative to recombinant DNA technologies.
The CRISPR system has been used successfully in complex organisms including adult mice and embryonic humans.
Recently, biotech startup Editas has announced that it hopes to begin clinical trials using CRISPR to modify the DNA of living adult humans to treat a rare eye disease called Leber congenital amaurosis.
Will Editas or another company enter into the US database a clinical trial with a start date prior to Dec. 31, 2017 that uses CRISPR to modify the DNA of a living human in order to treat a medical condition? | true | 2016-06-07 | Will a clinical trial begin by the end of 2017 using CRISPR to genetically modify a living human? | metaculus | 1 |
2016-11-09 | 2015-11-12 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-01", 0.21], ["2016-01-05", 0.189], ["2016-01-09", 0.199], ["2016-01-09", 0.191], ["2016-01-17", 0.188], ["2016-01-20", 0.212], ["2016-01-22", 0.19], ["2016-01-25", 0.186], ["2016-01-28", 0.227], ["2016-01-31", 0.226], ["2016-02-03", 0.224], ["2016-02-05", 0.224], ["2016-02-08", 0.216], ["2016-02-10", 0.214], ["2016-02-15", 0.214], ["2016-02-18", 0.211], ["2016-02-20", 0.209], ["2016-02-24", 0.206], ["2016-02-27", 0.203], ["2016-02-28", 0.214], ["2016-03-02", 0.211], ["2016-03-05", 0.222], ["2016-03-07", 0.222], ["2016-03-10", 0.224], ["2016-03-13", 0.232], ["2016-03-15", 0.224], ["2016-03-17", 0.223], ["2016-03-20", 0.226], ["2016-03-22", 0.224], ["2016-03-24", 0.222], ["2016-03-26", 0.228], ["2016-03-30", 0.226], ["2016-04-01", 0.226], ["2016-04-06", 0.226], ["2016-04-12", 0.227], ["2016-04-15", 0.221], ["2016-04-18", 0.219], ["2016-04-21", 0.219], ["2016-04-26", 0.219], ["2016-04-28", 0.22], ["2016-05-03", 0.227], ["2016-05-04", 0.226], ["2016-05-09", 0.226], ["2016-05-10", 0.227], ["2016-05-15", 0.226], ["2016-05-17", 0.226], ["2016-05-22", 0.224], ["2016-06-06", 0.23], ["2016-06-07", 0.232], ["2016-06-11", 0.232], ["2016-06-13", 0.231], ["2016-06-19", 0.231], ["2016-06-20", 0.225], ["2016-06-24", 0.227], ["2016-06-27", 0.226], ["2016-06-28", 0.226], ["2016-07-01", 0.22], ["2016-07-04", 0.22], ["2016-07-06", 0.223], ["2016-07-10", 0.221], ["2016-07-12", 0.221], ["2016-07-15", 0.225], ["2016-07-21", 0.224], ["2016-07-23", 0.223], ["2016-07-26", 0.226], ["2016-07-27", 0.242], ["2016-07-30", 0.258], ["2016-08-02", 0.265], ["2016-08-06", 0.252], ["2016-08-10", 0.251], ["2016-08-13", 0.249], ["2016-08-17", 0.244], ["2016-08-19", 0.241], ["2016-08-21", 0.239], ["2016-08-24", 0.238], ["2016-08-27", 0.236], ["2016-08-29", 0.235], ["2016-08-31", 0.237], ["2016-09-02", 0.24], ["2016-09-04", 0.239], ["2016-09-07", 0.241], ["2016-09-10", 0.239], ["2016-09-12", 0.239], ["2016-09-15", 0.241], ["2016-09-18", 0.246], ["2016-09-21", 0.249], ["2016-09-22", 0.249], ["2016-09-25", 0.249], ["2016-09-28", 0.251], ["2016-10-01", 0.249], ["2016-10-04", 0.251], ["2016-10-06", 0.251], ["2016-10-09", 0.25], ["2016-10-11", 0.249], ["2016-10-14", 0.248], ["2016-10-17", 0.247], ["2016-10-21", 0.244], ["2016-10-24", 0.24], ["2016-10-27", 0.237], ["2016-10-30", 0.237], ["2016-11-02", 0.237]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/24/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | Until Barack Obama, every single US president has been a white, Christian, non-Hispanic man. Will we revert to that trend?
This is an excercise in combining probabilities.
At the time of publication, we have three major contenders for the Democratic nomination: Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley.
Of these, only O'Malley would fit the characteristics in the question (Sanders being Jewish and Clinton female).
On the Republican side, we have Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Gilmore, Huckabee, Kasich, Paul, Rubio, Santorum, and Trump.
Of these, Bush, Christie, Gilmore, Huckabee, Kasich, Paul, Santorum, and Trump fit the characteristics of the question (this counts Cruz and Rubio as Hispanic.)
As a simple example, if we assume that all Democratic candidates are equally likely to receive the Democratic nomination, and all Republican candidates are equally likely to receive the Republican nomination, and that there is a 50-50 chance of a Republican or Democrat winning, then the probability for this question to resolve in the positive would be:
0.5 x (8/12) + 0.5 x (1/3) = 50%
In reality, the various probabilities are not equal and a different calculation should be done. So what do you think:
Will the next elected U.S. President be (as usual) a white, Christian, non-Hispanic man? | true | 2016-11-02 | Will the next elected U.S. President be (as usual) a white, Christian, non-Hispanic man? | metaculus | 1 |
2015-12-16 | 2015-11-13 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-17", 0.05], ["2015-11-23", 0.125]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/30/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Quantum computers make use of the properties of quantum mechanical (as opposed to classical) systems to solve certain problems much more efficiently than a classical computer can.
For example, using a quantum computer, large numbers could in principle be factored into primes using Shor's algorithm in polynomial time, versus near-exponential time for classical computers; this latter inefficiency underlies the security of many encryption schemes.
A prototypical quantum computer is composed of N "qubits," or quantum mechanical bits. Keeping these qubits operating as a closed system that retains its quantum character (without "decohering" via interactions with the environment) is a difficult challenge for more than a handful of qubits.
However, there have been a series of claims by D-wave systems that it had constructed quantum computers of a different type with thousands of qubits. These machines cannot enact generic quantum compuing algorithms like Shor's. However they are claimed to be dramatically faster at certain optimization problems.
There has been widespread skepticism towards D-wave's claims, with some asserting that D-wave's system does not use quantum mechanics at all, and others arguing that even if it does, that this provides no real speedup relative to classical computers.
Nonetheless, Google has purchased D-wave systems for testing, and Google, NASA and others recently signed a multi-year agreement to test the systems.
On November 11, a D-wave board member has announced that there will be a "watershed announcement" at Google on Dec. 8 about quantum computing. Will this occur, and be a major change or breakthrough in computing or quantum computing?
The question resolves as "true" if either the New York Times or Washington Post carries a story based on Google's Announcement on the front page prior to December 15, 2015. | true | 2015-12-01 | Will Google make a "watershed" announcement about quantum computing in early December? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-02 | 2015-11-15 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-26", 0.05], ["2015-11-26", 0.463], ["2015-12-03", 0.46], ["2015-12-03", 0.448], ["2015-12-05", 0.446], ["2015-12-05", 0.43], ["2015-12-09", 0.423], ["2015-12-09", 0.395], ["2015-12-10", 0.376], ["2015-12-10", 0.376], ["2015-12-16", 0.379], ["2015-12-17", 0.372], ["2015-12-19", 0.42], ["2015-12-20", 0.391], ["2015-12-27", 0.398], ["2015-12-31", 0.377], ["2016-01-01", 0.4], ["2016-01-02", 0.406], ["2016-01-03", 0.443], ["2016-01-04", 0.427], ["2016-01-04", 0.423], ["2016-01-05", 0.45], ["2016-01-07", 0.45], ["2016-01-07", 0.437], ["2016-01-08", 0.428], ["2016-01-11", 0.423], ["2016-01-12", 0.43], ["2016-01-13", 0.419], ["2016-01-14", 0.405], ["2016-01-20", 0.399], ["2016-01-21", 0.383], ["2016-01-21", 0.387], ["2016-01-24", 0.382], ["2016-01-25", 0.377], ["2016-01-26", 0.382], ["2016-01-26", 0.38], ["2016-01-27", 0.384], ["2016-01-28", 0.398], ["2016-01-31", 0.398], ["2016-02-01", 0.396], ["2016-02-02", 0.379], ["2016-02-04", 0.373], ["2016-02-04", 0.373], ["2016-02-05", 0.371], ["2016-02-07", 0.37], ["2016-02-08", 0.371], ["2016-02-09", 0.373], ["2016-02-09", 0.375], ["2016-02-10", 0.376], ["2016-02-11", 0.382], ["2016-02-11", 0.379], ["2016-02-12", 0.374], ["2016-02-13", 0.372], ["2016-02-14", 0.367], ["2016-02-15", 0.364], ["2016-02-15", 0.363], ["2016-02-16", 0.363], ["2016-02-16", 0.355], ["2016-02-17", 0.348], ["2016-02-19", 0.347], ["2016-02-19", 0.347], ["2016-02-20", 0.344], ["2016-02-21", 0.342], ["2016-02-21", 0.346], ["2016-02-21", 0.343], ["2016-02-22", 0.343], ["2016-02-23", 0.344], ["2016-02-24", 0.342], ["2016-02-24", 0.342], ["2016-02-28", 0.346], ["2016-02-28", 0.345], ["2016-03-01", 0.345], ["2016-03-02", 0.342], ["2016-03-02", 0.344], ["2016-03-04", 0.343], ["2016-03-07", 0.342], ["2016-03-07", 0.341], ["2016-03-08", 0.341], ["2016-03-08", 0.339], ["2016-03-09", 0.345], ["2016-03-10", 0.344], ["2016-03-11", 0.34], ["2016-03-12", 0.337], ["2016-03-13", 0.335], ["2016-03-13", 0.339], ["2016-03-16", 0.338], ["2016-03-16", 0.336], ["2016-03-17", 0.332], ["2016-03-18", 0.332], ["2016-03-22", 0.329], ["2016-03-22", 0.328], ["2016-03-24", 0.325], ["2016-03-25", 0.324], ["2016-03-26", 0.324], ["2016-03-26", 0.323], ["2016-03-28", 0.323], ["2016-03-28", 0.322], ["2016-03-29", 0.321], ["2016-03-31", 0.321], ["2016-03-31", 0.32], ["2016-04-01", 0.318]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/31/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Because many formulations of quantum mechanics explicitly include the "observer" (or at least "observation"), the place of conscious observers in the foundations of quantum mechanics has been a frequent, and quite controversial, issue.
Conversely, difficult questions regarding how conscious or mental activity is related to brain activity (the so-called "hard problem") have led some to suppose that this mystery may be related to puzzles involving quantum mechanics. Penrose, for example, has argued that the mind/brain cannot be modeled as a classical device, and that quantum effects are integral to thought.
If the brain really acts as a quantum computer, then it should presumably contain quantum systems sufficiently isolated from their environment to retain their essential quantum nature, rather than decohering into effectively classical systems. This is a challenge in the warm, wet environment of the brain, where studies have calculated that quantum states of electron-based systems should decohere in a tiny fraction of a second.
On the other hand, if quantum effects are potentially useful, the evolutionary drive toward high optimization is likely to have exploited them. And indeed, there is good evidence that quantum effects are employed in photosynthesis and some other biological processes.
Recently, a provocative paper by well-known physicist Matthew Fisher has appeared arguing that the nuceli of atoms are sufficiently isolated from the brain environment that nuclear spins could be used to store qubits, and manipulation of certain compounds could instantiate quantum computation. The paper proposes several experiments that could help validate or refute the hypotheses it puts forth.
Will this "quantum cognition" hypothesis be taken sufficiently seriously by the scientific community to investigate and test it?
The question will resolve as true if, by December 1, 2016, (a) The paper attains at least 15 citations as reported by Google Scholar, and (b) a paper is published or posted on the arXiv reporting a completed laboratory experiment that was inspired by (and directly references) Fisher's paper. | true | 2016-04-01 | Experimental tests of quantum effects in cognition? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-06-30 | 2015-12-02 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-04", 0.66], ["2015-12-05", 0.57], ["2015-12-05", 0.43], ["2015-12-06", 0.385], ["2015-12-06", 0.368], ["2015-12-07", 0.34], ["2015-12-09", 0.337], ["2015-12-09", 0.337], ["2015-12-09", 0.312], ["2015-12-09", 0.306], ["2015-12-16", 0.325], ["2015-12-20", 0.322], ["2015-12-21", 0.321], ["2015-12-23", 0.308], ["2016-01-05", 0.329], ["2016-01-20", 0.346], ["2016-01-21", 0.354], ["2016-01-21", 0.359], ["2016-01-26", 0.371], ["2016-01-27", 0.377], ["2016-01-27", 0.36], ["2016-01-28", 0.361], ["2016-01-28", 0.364], ["2016-01-28", 0.391], ["2016-01-28", 0.384], ["2016-01-28", 0.408], ["2016-01-31", 0.41], ["2016-01-31", 0.411], ["2016-02-01", 0.411], ["2016-02-02", 0.412], ["2016-02-03", 0.403], ["2016-02-04", 0.402], ["2016-02-04", 0.404], ["2016-02-08", 0.401], ["2016-02-09", 0.398], ["2016-02-09", 0.399], ["2016-02-10", 0.4], ["2016-02-10", 0.4], ["2016-02-10", 0.401], ["2016-02-10", 0.395], ["2016-02-11", 0.394], ["2016-02-11", 0.394], ["2016-02-15", 0.39], ["2016-02-15", 0.391], ["2016-02-15", 0.397], ["2016-02-16", 0.394], ["2016-02-16", 0.394], ["2016-02-17", 0.392], ["2016-02-18", 0.392], ["2016-02-18", 0.39], ["2016-02-18", 0.39], ["2016-02-19", 0.39], ["2016-02-19", 0.395], ["2016-02-19", 0.394], ["2016-02-19", 0.392], ["2016-02-19", 0.393], ["2016-02-20", 0.392], ["2016-02-20", 0.392], ["2016-02-20", 0.392], ["2016-02-20", 0.388], ["2016-02-20", 0.384], ["2016-02-20", 0.383], ["2016-02-21", 0.384], ["2016-02-21", 0.386], ["2016-02-21", 0.386], ["2016-02-23", 0.387], ["2016-02-23", 0.387], ["2016-02-24", 0.388], ["2016-02-25", 0.388], ["2016-02-28", 0.386], ["2016-02-28", 0.386], ["2016-02-28", 0.387], ["2016-02-29", 0.386], ["2016-02-29", 0.386]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/32/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Arts & Recreation | Egyptologist Nicholas Reeves has put together a case that King Tut was buried in an expanded entryway to Queen Nefertiti's tomb, and that her tomb remains undisturbed through a (proposed) sealed doorway.
In September, Reeves, along with Mamdouh Eldamaty, the Egypt's Minister of Antiquities, were granted permission to enter Tutankhamun's tomb.
Reeves' group has reported that recent radar scans reveal (with "approximately 90 percent" probability) that there is an additional chamber (or more.)
Will Reeves turn out to be correct that another royal tomb lays beyond King Tut's that may be Nefertiti's?
The question resolves positively if by June 30, the New York Times or Washington Post carries a news article stating that an additional royal burial chamber has been "discovered" and that the chamber is not inconsistent with being Nefertiti's. | true | 2016-02-29 | Is Nefertiti's tomb adjacent to King Tut's? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-05-01 | 2015-12-07 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-01", 0.98], ["2016-01-01", 0.97], ["2016-01-01", 0.98], ["2016-01-02", 0.977], ["2016-01-02", 0.97], ["2016-01-02", 0.962], ["2016-01-03", 0.93], ["2016-01-03", 0.925], ["2016-01-03", 0.923], ["2016-01-04", 0.929], ["2016-01-09", 0.934], ["2016-01-10", 0.931], ["2016-01-11", 0.901], ["2016-01-11", 0.905], ["2016-01-12", 0.901], ["2016-01-19", 0.896], ["2016-01-19", 0.888], ["2016-01-20", 0.859], ["2016-01-21", 0.854], ["2016-01-21", 0.84], ["2016-01-21", 0.831], ["2016-01-21", 0.828], ["2016-01-22", 0.831], ["2016-01-23", 0.832], ["2016-01-24", 0.84], ["2016-01-25", 0.836], ["2016-01-26", 0.835], ["2016-01-26", 0.842], ["2016-01-26", 0.846], ["2016-01-27", 0.83], ["2016-01-27", 0.827], ["2016-01-27", 0.828], ["2016-01-28", 0.833], ["2016-01-28", 0.838], ["2016-01-28", 0.835], ["2016-01-28", 0.84], ["2016-01-31", 0.836], ["2016-02-01", 0.839], ["2016-02-02", 0.837], ["2016-02-04", 0.842], ["2016-02-04", 0.843], ["2016-02-04", 0.838], ["2016-02-05", 0.835], ["2016-02-05", 0.839], ["2016-02-06", 0.843], ["2016-02-08", 0.838], ["2016-02-09", 0.839], ["2016-02-09", 0.84], ["2016-02-09", 0.838], ["2016-02-09", 0.838], ["2016-02-10", 0.84], ["2016-02-10", 0.844], ["2016-02-10", 0.847], ["2016-02-10", 0.848], ["2016-02-10", 0.847], ["2016-02-11", 0.845], ["2016-02-11", 0.849], ["2016-02-11", 0.851], ["2016-02-11", 0.853], ["2016-02-12", 0.854], ["2016-02-13", 0.856], ["2016-02-13", 0.857], ["2016-02-15", 0.859], ["2016-02-15", 0.86], ["2016-02-15", 0.847], ["2016-02-15", 0.848], ["2016-02-16", 0.846], ["2016-02-16", 0.846], ["2016-02-17", 0.848], ["2016-02-17", 0.849], ["2016-02-17", 0.851], ["2016-02-18", 0.837], ["2016-02-18", 0.838], ["2016-02-19", 0.84], ["2016-02-19", 0.842], ["2016-02-19", 0.844], ["2016-02-19", 0.846], ["2016-02-19", 0.849], ["2016-02-20", 0.843], ["2016-02-20", 0.844], ["2016-02-20", 0.843], ["2016-02-20", 0.841], ["2016-02-20", 0.84], ["2016-02-20", 0.834], ["2016-02-20", 0.836], ["2016-02-20", 0.838], ["2016-02-20", 0.839], ["2016-02-21", 0.834], ["2016-02-21", 0.83], ["2016-02-21", 0.832], ["2016-02-23", 0.83], ["2016-02-24", 0.834], ["2016-02-24", 0.837], ["2016-02-24", 0.838], ["2016-02-26", 0.839], ["2016-02-28", 0.832], ["2016-02-28", 0.831]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/33/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Note: This question is part of the Metaculus tutorial series on the art and science of making successful quantitative predictions. Additional useful information can be found at the Metaculus FAQ.
Most new internet sites don't generate much interest. If a site can bring in over a thousand active users in a few months, it's doing very well. In this question, we set the bar a little lower, and see whether:
Metaculus has greater than one thousand total unique sign ups by May.
This is an exercise in extrapolation, a key method of prediction. To get things started, the total number of registered users (albeit with some duplicate registrations) for the few weeks prior to question publication are:
12/12/2015 38
12/19/2015 67
12/26/2015 93
01/01/2015 129
Positive or negative resolution to be decided by site moderators by May 4, 2016. | true | 2016-03-01 | [Tutorial:] Will Metaculus have over one thousand users signed up by May 1, 2016. | metaculus | 1 |
2016-12-05 | 2015-12-10 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-15", 0.15], ["2015-12-15", 0.175], ["2015-12-15", 0.207], ["2015-12-17", 0.21], ["2015-12-17", 0.216], ["2015-12-20", 0.225], ["2015-12-20", 0.221], ["2015-12-21", 0.226], ["2015-12-21", 0.229], ["2015-12-31", 0.226], ["2016-01-01", 0.215], ["2016-01-03", 0.252], ["2016-01-05", 0.308], ["2016-01-13", 0.294], ["2016-01-21", 0.324], ["2016-01-21", 0.327], ["2016-01-25", 0.319], ["2016-01-26", 0.319], ["2016-01-28", 0.322], ["2016-01-28", 0.321], ["2016-01-28", 0.353], ["2016-01-29", 0.341], ["2016-01-30", 0.334], ["2016-01-31", 0.339], ["2016-02-01", 0.329], ["2016-02-02", 0.33], ["2016-02-03", 0.319], ["2016-02-04", 0.307], ["2016-02-04", 0.307], ["2016-02-04", 0.312], ["2016-02-05", 0.308], ["2016-02-06", 0.303], ["2016-02-07", 0.305], ["2016-02-09", 0.302], ["2016-02-09", 0.301], ["2016-02-10", 0.301], ["2016-02-10", 0.301], ["2016-02-12", 0.306], ["2016-02-15", 0.301], ["2016-02-15", 0.294], ["2016-02-15", 0.309], ["2016-02-16", 0.311], ["2016-02-16", 0.306], ["2016-02-17", 0.301], ["2016-02-17", 0.295], ["2016-02-17", 0.288], ["2016-02-19", 0.289], ["2016-02-19", 0.294], ["2016-02-19", 0.295], ["2016-02-19", 0.292], ["2016-02-20", 0.292], ["2016-02-20", 0.292], ["2016-02-20", 0.294], ["2016-02-20", 0.29], ["2016-02-20", 0.288], ["2016-02-21", 0.289], ["2016-02-21", 0.284], ["2016-02-28", 0.292], ["2016-03-01", 0.296], ["2016-03-06", 0.299], ["2016-03-08", 0.3], ["2016-03-10", 0.299], ["2016-03-10", 0.295], ["2016-03-10", 0.296], ["2016-03-11", 0.296], ["2016-03-12", 0.296], ["2016-03-12", 0.296], ["2016-03-13", 0.294], ["2016-03-13", 0.293], ["2016-03-13", 0.303], ["2016-03-14", 0.303], ["2016-03-18", 0.302], ["2016-03-18", 0.302], ["2016-03-20", 0.303], ["2016-03-21", 0.299], ["2016-03-22", 0.298], ["2016-03-26", 0.295], ["2016-03-28", 0.297], ["2016-03-30", 0.306], ["2016-04-01", 0.304], ["2016-04-01", 0.304], ["2016-04-07", 0.302], ["2016-04-12", 0.301], ["2016-04-14", 0.301], ["2016-04-20", 0.3], ["2016-04-24", 0.297], ["2016-04-28", 0.293], ["2016-05-16", 0.291], ["2016-05-16", 0.29], ["2016-05-17", 0.291], ["2016-05-20", 0.287], ["2016-05-25", 0.288], ["2016-05-30", 0.285], ["2016-05-31", 0.277], ["2016-05-31", 0.277], ["2016-06-01", 0.278], ["2016-06-01", 0.277]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/36/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Godel's first incompleteness theorem, one of the most celebrated results in mathematics, asserts that in sufficiently complex axiomatic formal systems there will be statements that are knowably true, yet unprovable within the formal system.
A related result due to Turing proves that the halting problem (of determining whether a general computer program will halt or run forever) is undecidable in that no Turing Machine exists that can solve it.
Though of deep importance in mathematics and theoretical computer science, these results have generally been considered to have few if any implications for physics, and by extension the natural world. (Though see this result in classical physics, and the extended discussions by Penrose, Chaitin, Barrow, Tegmark and Aaronson.)
A fascinating new result by Cubitt, Perez-Garcia, and Wolf (CPW; see Nature paper and infinitely long arXiv paper) suggests that the implications may be stronger than previously thought. They prove that in certain idealized quantum systems, the existence of a finite energy "gap" between the ground state and first excited state is formally undecidable. They moreover prove that as the number of lattice sites L increases toward infinite, a gap may appear and/or disappear at values of L that are undecidable.
This result potentially calls into question standard operating procedure in many quantum many-body physics problems. However, its applicability to realistic physical systems is as yet unclear, calling for further work.
In the next year will a paper be published establishing a new version of, extension to, or result derived from, Cubitt et al.'s theorem that applies to an actually existing physical system (including one fabricated in the lab for this purpose)? | true | 2016-06-01 | Are there physical systems with properties that are impossible in principle to predict? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-01-16 | 2015-12-10 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-10", 0.02], ["2015-12-10", 0.015], ["2015-12-10", 0.02], ["2015-12-11", 0.022], ["2015-12-11", 0.022], ["2015-12-12", 0.022], ["2015-12-12", 0.022], ["2015-12-12", 0.022], ["2015-12-14", 0.026], ["2015-12-15", 0.029], ["2015-12-15", 0.027], ["2015-12-19", 0.025], ["2015-12-20", 0.032], ["2015-12-20", 0.032], ["2015-12-21", 0.032], ["2015-12-21", 0.033], ["2015-12-27", 0.031], ["2015-12-27", 0.048], ["2015-12-27", 0.048], ["2015-12-27", 0.048], ["2015-12-27", 0.042], ["2015-12-29", 0.044], ["2015-12-29", 0.044], ["2015-12-31", 0.044], ["2015-12-31", 0.043]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/37/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | On December 8th 2015, two papers independently suggesting the possible discoveries of new planet-sized objects in the outer reaches of our own solar system were posted to the astro-ph pre-print server.
The first paper -- submitted for publication, but as-yet not peer reviewed -- describes the serendipitous detection, using the new ALMA array, of a moving source in the constellation Aquila:
Vlemmings et al. (2015) -- The serendipitous discovery of a possible new solar system object with ALMA
The Vlemmings et al. object, which the authors of the paper have named "Gna", was observed in the sub-millimeter continuum at 345 GHz. It has properties that are consistent with either a Centaur-like minor planet at a roughly Uranus-like distance of 12 to 25 AU, or more intriguingly, with a large rogue planet traversing the the solar system at ~4,000 Earth-Sun distances. (A third possibility, of course, is that the source is a false alarm, or something else entirely.)
The second proposed candidate was also found with ALMA, as described in this unrefereed preprint:
Liseau et al. (2015) -- A new submm source within a few arcseconds of α Centauri: ALMA discovers the most distant object of the solar system
The discoverers argue that this source is either an extreme TNO (trans-Neptunian object), a super-earth sized planet, or a very cool brown dwarf in the outer realm of the solar system.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Fortunately, however, if either one of these observations has actually found an planet-sized or larger object in the outer solar system, it will be easy to confirm that the object truly exists.
On or before January 15th, 2016, will confirmation by an independent team of astronomers of one (or both) of these objects as a planetary-mass object beyond 100 AU be reported in either the New York Times or the Washington Post? | true | 2015-12-31 | Has new a planetary-mass object been discovered in the outer solar system? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-20 | 2015-12-15 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-15", 0.17], ["2015-12-15", 0.18], ["2015-12-15", 0.123], ["2015-12-15", 0.155], ["2015-12-17", 0.174], ["2015-12-17", 0.162], ["2015-12-17", 0.161], ["2015-12-17", 0.14], ["2015-12-17", 0.124], ["2015-12-18", 0.111], ["2015-12-19", 0.101], ["2015-12-20", 0.099], ["2015-12-20", 0.099], ["2015-12-20", 0.096], ["2015-12-20", 0.098], ["2015-12-20", 0.1], ["2015-12-21", 0.1], ["2015-12-22", 0.094], ["2015-12-26", 0.098], ["2015-12-31", 0.097], ["2016-01-01", 0.093], ["2016-01-03", 0.088], ["2016-01-03", 0.108], ["2016-01-04", 0.126], ["2016-01-04", 0.104], ["2016-01-04", 0.126], ["2016-01-04", 0.109], ["2016-01-04", 0.106], ["2016-01-04", 0.103], ["2016-01-05", 0.096], ["2016-01-06", 0.093], ["2016-01-07", 0.107], ["2016-01-07", 0.108], ["2016-01-08", 0.108], ["2016-01-10", 0.106], ["2016-01-12", 0.116], ["2016-01-12", 0.116], ["2016-01-12", 0.112], ["2016-01-14", 0.109]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/38/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Names and labels carry a heavy freight and they get people worked up. The agonized IAU deliberations vis-à-vis Pluto’s status as a "plutoid" or a planet or a dwarf planet constituted by far the biggest planet news of 2006. The issue of what to call an astronomical object can have important consequences. It’s unlikely that the wildly successful New Horizons Mission would have gotten its congressional funding approval if Pluto had never held the status of a named planet.
Galileo, in sighting the moons of Jupiter, made the first telescopic discovery of new worlds. He tried to increase his odds of patronage by naming his new moons “The Medicean Stars” in reference to Cosimo II de’ Medici, fourth Grand Duke of Tuscany. The "Medicean Stars", however, are neither medicean nor stars, and so it’s not surprising that the name failed to stick.
The International Astronomical Union has just announced officially sanctioned names for 31 extrasolar planets. For example, the first extrasolar planet discovered in orbit around a sunlike star, 51 Peg b, can now officially be referred to as "Dimidium".
There have been numerous attempts to name extrasolar planets, but none have replaced the system currently in use, in which lower-case letters are appended to the name of the parent star as successive planets are discovered, for example Gliese 876b, Gliese 876c, etc.
Will the official IAU sanction be enough to influence astronomical usage?
During the month of December, 2016, will papers published in the peer-reviewed astronomical literature refer to the 31 IAU-sanctioned planet names with greater frequency than they refer to the same 31 planets by their traditional names? | true | 2016-01-15 | Will the IAU-sanctioned Exoplanet Names come into regular use? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-08-15 | 2015-12-16 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-16", 0.18], ["2015-12-17", 0.076], ["2015-12-18", 0.097], ["2015-12-20", 0.099], ["2015-12-21", 0.107], ["2015-12-27", 0.1], ["2015-12-31", 0.093], ["2016-01-04", 0.11], ["2016-01-05", 0.139], ["2016-01-08", 0.169], ["2016-01-11", 0.168], ["2016-01-20", 0.17], ["2016-01-21", 0.182], ["2016-01-23", 0.179], ["2016-01-26", 0.175], ["2016-01-27", 0.184], ["2016-01-28", 0.238], ["2016-01-31", 0.235], ["2016-02-01", 0.234], ["2016-02-02", 0.233], ["2016-02-04", 0.234], ["2016-02-04", 0.232], ["2016-02-05", 0.23], ["2016-02-08", 0.237], ["2016-02-09", 0.239], ["2016-02-10", 0.258], ["2016-02-15", 0.254], ["2016-02-16", 0.275], ["2016-02-17", 0.277], ["2016-02-19", 0.277], ["2016-02-20", 0.274], ["2016-02-20", 0.272], ["2016-02-22", 0.266], ["2016-02-22", 0.267], ["2016-02-23", 0.268], ["2016-02-28", 0.275], ["2016-02-28", 0.278], ["2016-03-01", 0.282], ["2016-03-01", 0.285], ["2016-03-02", 0.285], ["2016-03-03", 0.286], ["2016-03-05", 0.288], ["2016-03-06", 0.289], ["2016-03-07", 0.288], ["2016-03-08", 0.288], ["2016-03-09", 0.29], ["2016-03-10", 0.292], ["2016-03-11", 0.292], ["2016-03-12", 0.297], ["2016-03-13", 0.297], ["2016-03-15", 0.297], ["2016-03-17", 0.298], ["2016-03-18", 0.305], ["2016-03-19", 0.305], ["2016-03-20", 0.314], ["2016-03-21", 0.314], ["2016-03-22", 0.316], ["2016-03-23", 0.316], ["2016-03-24", 0.317], ["2016-03-25", 0.316], ["2016-03-26", 0.316], ["2016-03-27", 0.321], ["2016-03-27", 0.321], ["2016-03-28", 0.321], ["2016-03-30", 0.321], ["2016-03-31", 0.326], ["2016-04-01", 0.328], ["2016-04-02", 0.333], ["2016-04-02", 0.335], ["2016-04-04", 0.335], ["2016-04-05", 0.333], ["2016-04-06", 0.333], ["2016-04-07", 0.334], ["2016-04-12", 0.334], ["2016-04-13", 0.333], ["2016-04-14", 0.334], ["2016-04-15", 0.334], ["2016-04-18", 0.336], ["2016-04-25", 0.334], ["2016-04-26", 0.334], ["2016-04-26", 0.332], ["2016-04-28", 0.333], ["2016-04-29", 0.333], ["2016-05-03", 0.333], ["2016-05-03", 0.334], ["2016-05-04", 0.335], ["2016-05-10", 0.338], ["2016-05-10", 0.338], ["2016-05-12", 0.338], ["2016-05-16", 0.338], ["2016-05-16", 0.343], ["2016-05-17", 0.345], ["2016-05-19", 0.344], ["2016-05-19", 0.348], ["2016-05-22", 0.35], ["2016-05-22", 0.35], ["2016-05-25", 0.352], ["2016-05-27", 0.351], ["2016-05-27", 0.352], ["2016-05-30", 0.35], ["2016-05-31", 0.345]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/41/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | On December 15th, 2015, two teams of physicists at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN announced the possible, tentative, detection of a new elementary particle. News story here.
The teams (comprised of the CMS and ATLAS consortia) have been accumulating data from the energetic collisions that occur when twin 6.5 TeV proton beams are directed at each other. Within the resulting subatomic collisional debris, both teams are observing an excess of 750 GeV gamma ray pairs that hint at the decay of a new type of boson that is four times heavier than the top quark.
The signal still has relatively low statistical significance, and was announced only because it was independently observed by both the CMS team and the ATLAS team. Further data are being acquired, and by Summer 2016, the signal, if it is real, will be of order 10x stronger than at present.
Will there be an announcement at or before the Aug 3-10 38th International Conference on High-Energy Physics, that the evidence for a di-photon excess has increased, rather than decreased, in statistical significance, to 5-sigma equivalent incompatibility with the standard model? (This significance can arise from a combined analysis of CMS and Atlas data.)
(Note: resolution criteria updated 3/8/16) | true | 2016-06-01 | Has a new boson been discovered at the LHC? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-21 | 2015-12-19 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-19", 0.82], ["2015-12-19", 0.795], ["2015-12-20", 0.697], ["2015-12-20", 0.592], ["2015-12-20", 0.614], ["2015-12-20", 0.622], ["2015-12-20", 0.626], ["2015-12-20", 0.626], ["2015-12-20", 0.633], ["2015-12-21", 0.645], ["2015-12-21", 0.623], ["2015-12-21", 0.642], ["2015-12-21", 0.642], ["2015-12-21", 0.642], ["2015-12-21", 0.575], ["2015-12-21", 0.642], ["2015-12-21", 0.637], ["2015-12-23", 0.628], ["2015-12-23", 0.648], ["2015-12-24", 0.619], ["2015-12-24", 0.619], ["2015-12-24", 0.619], ["2015-12-24", 0.619], ["2015-12-24", 0.619], ["2015-12-26", 0.619], ["2015-12-26", 0.638], ["2015-12-27", 0.644], ["2015-12-30", 0.65], ["2015-12-30", 0.65], ["2016-01-01", 0.65], ["2016-01-01", 0.647], ["2016-01-03", 0.64], ["2016-01-03", 0.646], ["2016-01-03", 0.63], ["2016-01-05", 0.646], ["2016-01-12", 0.656], ["2016-01-21", 0.655], ["2016-01-25", 0.629], ["2016-01-27", 0.632], ["2016-01-27", 0.63], ["2016-01-27", 0.633], ["2016-01-28", 0.634], ["2016-01-28", 0.634], ["2016-01-28", 0.645], ["2016-01-31", 0.646], ["2016-02-02", 0.645], ["2016-02-03", 0.653], ["2016-02-03", 0.655], ["2016-02-04", 0.654], ["2016-02-04", 0.652], ["2016-02-07", 0.651], ["2016-02-09", 0.65], ["2016-02-10", 0.649], ["2016-02-10", 0.65], ["2016-02-10", 0.649], ["2016-02-15", 0.649], ["2016-02-15", 0.648], ["2016-02-16", 0.649], ["2016-02-17", 0.65], ["2016-02-19", 0.649], ["2016-02-19", 0.646], ["2016-02-19", 0.648], ["2016-02-19", 0.648], ["2016-02-20", 0.648], ["2016-02-20", 0.647], ["2016-02-20", 0.646], ["2016-02-20", 0.649], ["2016-02-20", 0.65], ["2016-02-22", 0.657], ["2016-02-23", 0.659], ["2016-02-24", 0.659], ["2016-02-24", 0.659], ["2016-02-28", 0.658], ["2016-02-28", 0.66], ["2016-02-28", 0.659], ["2016-03-02", 0.658], ["2016-03-03", 0.66], ["2016-03-04", 0.661], ["2016-03-07", 0.66], ["2016-03-08", 0.659], ["2016-03-09", 0.657], ["2016-03-10", 0.657], ["2016-03-10", 0.658], ["2016-03-12", 0.657], ["2016-03-12", 0.658], ["2016-03-12", 0.66], ["2016-03-13", 0.65], ["2016-03-13", 0.65], ["2016-03-14", 0.65], ["2016-03-15", 0.651], ["2016-03-17", 0.648], ["2016-03-17", 0.649], ["2016-03-18", 0.648], ["2016-03-18", 0.647], ["2016-03-18", 0.642], ["2016-03-18", 0.643], ["2016-03-19", 0.643], ["2016-03-19", 0.642], ["2016-03-20", 0.637], ["2016-03-20", 0.631]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/43/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | The development of the new IEX exchange was a central theme in Michael Lewis' controversial 2014 book Flash Boys, which describes aspects of computerized high-frequency trading of stocks.
A stated aim of the IEX Exchange is to provide a level playing field for all market participants through the implementation of a 350 microsecond delay between order submission and execution.
IEX has been operating as an Alternative Trading System since October 2013. In September 2015, it applied to the U.S. Securities Exchange Commision for approval to operate as a Registered Exchange. The application generated a large amount of public comment, with arguments being placed both in favor of and against IEX's plans.
The SEC was scheduled to issue a decision statement on IEX's application on Dec. 21st, 2015. On Friday December 18th, however, it announced that IEX has approved a delay until next March 21st for a final decision.
On March 21, 2016, will the SEC grant approval for IEX to operate as a Registered Securities Exchange? In order for the question to be resolved as yes, any amended version of IEX's application must retain the critical feature in which the 350 microsecond delay is placed between order submissions and executions. | true | 2016-03-20 | Will the SEC approve the IEX's application to operate as a registered exchange? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-14 | 2015-12-19 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-21", 0.75], ["2015-12-21", 0.723], ["2015-12-23", 0.718], ["2015-12-23", 0.736], ["2015-12-26", 0.717], ["2015-12-26", 0.711], ["2015-12-31", 0.704], ["2016-01-01", 0.697], ["2016-01-05", 0.702], ["2016-01-05", 0.692], ["2016-01-07", 0.647], ["2016-01-09", 0.644], ["2016-01-17", 0.66], ["2016-01-19", 0.678], ["2016-01-21", 0.675], ["2016-01-26", 0.672], ["2016-01-28", 0.669], ["2016-01-28", 0.684], ["2016-01-28", 0.684], ["2016-01-29", 0.683], ["2016-01-29", 0.684], ["2016-01-31", 0.689], ["2016-02-01", 0.677], ["2016-02-02", 0.675], ["2016-02-03", 0.67], ["2016-02-04", 0.669], ["2016-02-04", 0.65], ["2016-02-04", 0.658], ["2016-02-05", 0.663], ["2016-02-07", 0.651], ["2016-02-08", 0.646], ["2016-02-09", 0.645], ["2016-02-09", 0.635], ["2016-02-10", 0.634], ["2016-02-10", 0.626], ["2016-02-13", 0.628], ["2016-02-15", 0.623], ["2016-02-15", 0.62], ["2016-02-15", 0.61], ["2016-02-15", 0.612], ["2016-02-16", 0.607], ["2016-02-17", 0.613], ["2016-02-19", 0.613], ["2016-02-19", 0.611], ["2016-02-19", 0.61], ["2016-02-19", 0.61], ["2016-02-20", 0.61], ["2016-02-20", 0.612], ["2016-02-21", 0.604], ["2016-02-22", 0.593], ["2016-02-24", 0.594], ["2016-02-24", 0.593], ["2016-02-27", 0.587], ["2016-02-28", 0.589], ["2016-03-01", 0.59], ["2016-03-02", 0.589], ["2016-03-03", 0.589], ["2016-03-04", 0.589], ["2016-03-07", 0.586], ["2016-03-10", 0.585], ["2016-03-10", 0.581], ["2016-03-11", 0.587], ["2016-03-12", 0.591], ["2016-03-12", 0.586], ["2016-03-13", 0.592], ["2016-03-17", 0.591], ["2016-03-18", 0.592], ["2016-03-20", 0.591], ["2016-03-24", 0.591], ["2016-03-24", 0.591], ["2016-03-27", 0.59], ["2016-03-29", 0.59], ["2016-03-30", 0.595], ["2016-03-31", 0.594], ["2016-04-01", 0.59], ["2016-04-01", 0.583], ["2016-04-02", 0.583], ["2016-04-14", 0.583], ["2016-04-15", 0.585], ["2016-04-18", 0.585], ["2016-04-19", 0.583], ["2016-04-25", 0.582], ["2016-04-28", 0.584], ["2016-04-28", 0.583], ["2016-04-29", 0.582], ["2016-04-29", 0.582], ["2016-05-02", 0.581], ["2016-05-03", 0.581], ["2016-05-03", 0.58], ["2016-05-05", 0.576], ["2016-05-06", 0.577], ["2016-05-06", 0.577], ["2016-05-07", 0.578], ["2016-05-10", 0.578], ["2016-05-12", 0.572], ["2016-05-12", 0.565], ["2016-05-13", 0.558], ["2016-05-13", 0.556], ["2016-05-15", 0.556], ["2016-05-15", 0.555], ["2016-05-15", 0.556]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/44/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | "Gene drives" are phenomena in a species' population in which one version of a gene, or allele, is probabilistically favored over other alleles that are otherwise equally favored by fitness. A gene drive in a particular allele shows up as a bias for the corresponding phenotype in the offspring. Consider two parents with different alleles for the same gene; if there exists a gene drive for one allele, it is highly likely that all of the parents' offspring will carry the driven gene's trait.
With new advances in genetic engineering using CRISPR, it is now much easier to modify an organism's genes. This makes engineered gene drives tractable: a gene coding for the CRISPR system itself can be encoded near to the gene being "driven," so that if one copy of the driven allele and one "wild" allele are inherited, the CRISPR system modifies the wild gene so that the driven gene plus CRISPR system is inherited. This process can spread the driven gene expoentially throughout a population, at a rate far exceeding the spread of a gene that is merely favorable for survival.
Uses of this method include the potential to eliminate diseases like malaria or lyme disease that are spread by a fast-reproducing vector, by promoting disease-resistant traits. Valentino Gantz et. al. have genetically altered a primary malaria vector native to India, the Anopheles stephensi mosquito, to carry and pass on anti-malaria traits. Another study published in nature biotechnology offers a more drastic approach that would render female Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes, native to Africa, completely infertile, with the intent of wiping out the species in affected ecosystems. Similar studies have investigated engineering mice (a prime carrier) to be immune to Lyme disease.
With Malaria afflicting hundreds of millions of people per year, advances in gene drive research have insitgated public conversation about the usefulness, feasibility, and ethics of gene drives is being encouraged before testing them in wild ecosystems. By January 1st, 2018, will a formal submission be made to a regulatory body proposing to test a malaria-combatting gene drive in a wild population? | true | 2016-05-15 | By the end of 2017 will a gene drive targeting malaria be initiated? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-15 | 2015-12-20 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-23", 0.25], ["2015-12-23", 0.17], ["2015-12-23", 0.292], ["2015-12-26", 0.354], ["2015-12-26", 0.329], ["2015-12-26", 0.325], ["2015-12-27", 0.3], ["2015-12-28", 0.31], ["2015-12-28", 0.31], ["2015-12-29", 0.327], ["2015-12-29", 0.309], ["2015-12-31", 0.308], ["2016-01-01", 0.3], ["2016-01-01", 0.3], ["2016-01-03", 0.334], ["2016-01-03", 0.333], ["2016-01-04", 0.335], ["2016-01-05", 0.317], ["2016-01-05", 0.333], ["2016-01-07", 0.322], ["2016-01-08", 0.309], ["2016-01-09", 0.306], ["2016-01-12", 0.301], ["2016-01-19", 0.318], ["2016-01-20", 0.314], ["2016-01-21", 0.319], ["2016-01-21", 0.319], ["2016-01-24", 0.326], ["2016-01-26", 0.33], ["2016-01-26", 0.332], ["2016-01-27", 0.334], ["2016-01-27", 0.326], ["2016-01-27", 0.319], ["2016-01-27", 0.428], ["2016-01-28", 0.491], ["2016-01-28", 0.577], ["2016-01-28", 0.586], ["2016-01-29", 0.597], ["2016-01-29", 0.593], ["2016-01-29", 0.598], ["2016-01-29", 0.598], ["2016-01-31", 0.606], ["2016-01-31", 0.613], ["2016-02-01", 0.618], ["2016-02-01", 0.623], ["2016-02-02", 0.631], ["2016-02-02", 0.643], ["2016-02-02", 0.648], ["2016-02-02", 0.647], ["2016-02-03", 0.648], ["2016-02-03", 0.651], ["2016-02-03", 0.652], ["2016-02-04", 0.655], ["2016-02-04", 0.656], ["2016-02-05", 0.659], ["2016-02-05", 0.668], ["2016-02-06", 0.671], ["2016-02-07", 0.676], ["2016-02-08", 0.683], ["2016-02-09", 0.683], ["2016-02-09", 0.683], ["2016-02-10", 0.686], ["2016-02-10", 0.689], ["2016-02-10", 0.691], ["2016-02-11", 0.712], ["2016-02-11", 0.713], ["2016-02-11", 0.716], ["2016-02-11", 0.718], ["2016-02-12", 0.716], ["2016-02-12", 0.717], ["2016-02-13", 0.72], ["2016-02-14", 0.721], ["2016-02-15", 0.723], ["2016-02-15", 0.731], ["2016-02-16", 0.733], ["2016-02-16", 0.736], ["2016-02-16", 0.737], ["2016-02-16", 0.738], ["2016-02-17", 0.74], ["2016-02-17", 0.741], ["2016-02-17", 0.746], ["2016-02-18", 0.747], ["2016-02-18", 0.748], ["2016-02-19", 0.746], ["2016-02-19", 0.749], ["2016-02-19", 0.751], ["2016-02-20", 0.756], ["2016-02-20", 0.757], ["2016-02-21", 0.758], ["2016-02-21", 0.757], ["2016-02-21", 0.759], ["2016-02-22", 0.76], ["2016-02-23", 0.761], ["2016-02-24", 0.762], ["2016-02-24", 0.762], ["2016-02-24", 0.763], ["2016-02-27", 0.763], ["2016-02-28", 0.764], ["2016-02-28", 0.76], ["2016-02-29", 0.762], ["2016-02-29", 0.764]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/45/ | The [game of Go] originated in China more than 2,500 years ago. While similar to chess in many ways, Go is much more minimalist in its ruleset and more esoteric in strategy. The aspect of pattern recognition and the huge state space of possible moves in Go (vastly greater than chess) make it an excellent metric for the capabilities of artifical intelligence. Many computer Go players have been developed, and the University of Electro-Communications (UEC) in Japan has held annual cups that pit AI vs. AI in games of Go to determine the strongest computer player. A five-year agreement was made in 2012 to grant the AI victors of the UEC cup additional matches against highly ranked human Go professionals. These are called Densei-sen, or "electric Sage battles," made to test the AI's effectiveness against human opponents.
The [Crazy Stone go engine], created by Rémi Coulom, beat Go Sensei Norimoto Yoda in the second Densei-sen competition at the UEC. However, Crazy Stone was granted an extremely generous handicap of a four-stone advantage at the start. Many other computer Go players exist, including ones in development by AI giants like [Facebook] and [Google DeepMind], but none have beaten a [professionally ranked] human player without a handicap.
The next UEC cup is in March 2016 and [many prominent AI teams have already registered], including Crazy Stone and Facebook AI's own darkforest. Additionally, Google's Demis Hassabis has [implied] a new breakthrough in Go artificial intelligence. With Computer Go getting more and more powerful, an AI player beating a Go master is a real possibility. | Science & Tech | This question is positively resolved if, in 2016, an AI with no handicap beats a professional human player in an official game of Go. | true | 2016-03-01 | In 2016, will an AI player beat a professionally ranked human in the ancient game of Go? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-01-09 | 2015-12-22 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-31", 0.2], ["2015-12-31", 0.16], ["2015-12-31", 0.137], ["2016-01-01", 0.146], ["2016-01-01", 0.146], ["2016-01-02", 0.153], ["2016-01-03", 0.156], ["2016-01-03", 0.212], ["2016-01-04", 0.215], ["2016-01-05", 0.201], ["2016-01-05", 0.254], ["2016-01-06", 0.245], ["2016-01-07", 0.264], ["2016-01-08", 0.267], ["2016-01-09", 0.27], ["2016-01-09", 0.263], ["2016-01-11", 0.267], ["2016-01-11", 0.259], ["2016-01-12", 0.246], ["2016-01-12", 0.257], ["2016-01-13", 0.253], ["2016-01-13", 0.245], ["2016-01-14", 0.249], ["2016-01-16", 0.245], ["2016-01-17", 0.259], ["2016-01-17", 0.284], ["2016-01-18", 0.287], ["2016-01-18", 0.3], ["2016-01-19", 0.327], ["2016-01-20", 0.336], ["2016-01-21", 0.346], ["2016-01-21", 0.349], ["2016-01-22", 0.345], ["2016-01-22", 0.35], ["2016-01-23", 0.353], ["2016-01-23", 0.351], ["2016-01-24", 0.356], ["2016-01-24", 0.365], ["2016-01-25", 0.362], ["2016-01-25", 0.364], ["2016-01-26", 0.361], ["2016-01-26", 0.376], ["2016-01-27", 0.37], ["2016-01-27", 0.365], ["2016-01-27", 0.377], ["2016-01-28", 0.382], ["2016-01-28", 0.383], ["2016-01-29", 0.387], ["2016-01-30", 0.386], ["2016-01-30", 0.388], ["2016-01-31", 0.387], ["2016-01-31", 0.387], ["2016-02-01", 0.39], ["2016-02-01", 0.39], ["2016-02-02", 0.387], ["2016-02-02", 0.386], ["2016-02-03", 0.388], ["2016-02-03", 0.386], ["2016-02-04", 0.387], ["2016-02-04", 0.389], ["2016-02-04", 0.389], ["2016-02-05", 0.388], ["2016-02-05", 0.384], ["2016-02-07", 0.381], ["2016-02-08", 0.382], ["2016-02-08", 0.383], ["2016-02-09", 0.383], ["2016-02-09", 0.38], ["2016-02-10", 0.379], ["2016-02-10", 0.378], ["2016-02-11", 0.38], ["2016-02-12", 0.376], ["2016-02-12", 0.378], ["2016-02-13", 0.379], ["2016-02-14", 0.379], ["2016-02-15", 0.379], ["2016-02-16", 0.385], ["2016-02-16", 0.383], ["2016-02-16", 0.383], ["2016-02-17", 0.383], ["2016-02-18", 0.383], ["2016-02-18", 0.383], ["2016-02-18", 0.383], ["2016-02-19", 0.385], ["2016-02-20", 0.384], ["2016-02-20", 0.391], ["2016-02-20", 0.389], ["2016-02-21", 0.388], ["2016-02-21", 0.384], ["2016-02-22", 0.382], ["2016-02-23", 0.382], ["2016-02-24", 0.383], ["2016-02-24", 0.384], ["2016-02-25", 0.386], ["2016-02-27", 0.386], ["2016-02-28", 0.386], ["2016-02-28", 0.385], ["2016-02-28", 0.384], ["2016-02-29", 0.383], ["2016-03-01", 0.383], ["2016-03-01", 0.384]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/46/ | Self-driving cars (SDC) are [anticipated] to become increasingly integrated into the driving population in the coming years; greatly reducing accident rates, giving driving independence to the impaired, and reducing fuel consumption are a few major benefits (see more [here] and [here.]) [Google] and [Tesla] in the U.S. and [Baidu] in China lead the race to bring their SDC technology to market, and other companies like [Nissan] and [Mobileye] are also invested in autonomous vehicle technology.
Tesla's Elon Musk marked 2018 as the due date for fully autonomous Tesla vehicles in a [recent interview]. Meanwhile, Google does have autonomous SDC prototypes being live tested in [cities]. Still, economic and [regulatory] obstacles have to be overcome. | Science & Tech | Will there be a car commercially-available in at least two US states with an MSRP of less than $75,000 and delivery date within 2018, that can autonomously carry its passenger between two generic drivable destinations that are 20-100 km apart via public roads in those states?
(updated 2/20 to clarify resolution criteria of two US states and public roads) | true | 2016-03-01 | Fully autonomous self-driving cars by 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-30 | 2015-12-23 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-23", 0.4], ["2015-12-23", 0.38], ["2015-12-23", 0.32], ["2015-12-23", 0.405], ["2015-12-23", 0.474], ["2015-12-26", 0.45], ["2015-12-26", 0.483], ["2015-12-26", 0.436], ["2015-12-26", 0.421], ["2015-12-26", 0.441], ["2015-12-27", 0.472], ["2015-12-27", 0.462], ["2015-12-28", 0.467], ["2015-12-30", 0.493], ["2015-12-31", 0.49], ["2015-12-31", 0.494], ["2016-01-01", 0.495], ["2016-01-03", 0.502], ["2016-01-05", 0.503], ["2016-01-05", 0.515], ["2016-01-08", 0.492], ["2016-01-08", 0.502], ["2016-01-12", 0.507], ["2016-01-12", 0.529], ["2016-01-12", 0.499], ["2016-01-13", 0.507], ["2016-01-16", 0.517], ["2016-01-18", 0.516], ["2016-01-19", 0.514], ["2016-01-20", 0.529], ["2016-01-21", 0.534], ["2016-01-21", 0.532], ["2016-01-21", 0.532], ["2016-01-22", 0.531], ["2016-01-24", 0.526], ["2016-01-26", 0.531], ["2016-01-27", 0.537], ["2016-01-27", 0.526], ["2016-01-27", 0.523], ["2016-01-28", 0.524], ["2016-01-28", 0.524], ["2016-01-28", 0.508], ["2016-01-31", 0.508], ["2016-01-31", 0.506]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/47/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | In the popular financial press, the VIX Index is often referred to as the "fear gauge". In reality, it is a quantitative assessment of expected stock market volatility over the next thirty day period, and is computed from S&P 500 stock index option prices.
To rule-of-thumb accuracy, the numerical value of the VIX corresponds to the annualized one-sigma percentage change in the value of the S&P 500 Index over the next month. At present, the VIX stands just above 16, so very roughly speaking, this means that the market ascribes a 30% chance that stocks will have changed in price by more than 3.5% by late January 2016.
Typically, the value of the VIX lies between 10 and 20, but it regularly spikes during times of market turmoil. During the 2008 financial crisis, for example, the VIX briefly reached values above 80.
During the calendar year 2016, will the VIX Index have an intra-day print with a value above 50? | true | 2016-01-31 | Will the VIX Index print above 50 in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-06 | 2015-12-27 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-29", 0.15], ["2015-12-29", 0.15], ["2015-12-30", 0.13], ["2015-12-31", 0.22], ["2015-12-31", 0.19], ["2016-01-01", 0.198], ["2016-01-01", 0.178], ["2016-01-05", 0.185], ["2016-01-05", 0.216], ["2016-01-08", 0.207], ["2016-01-12", 0.27], ["2016-01-19", 0.268], ["2016-01-19", 0.275], ["2016-01-20", 0.318], ["2016-01-21", 0.323], ["2016-01-23", 0.337], ["2016-01-27", 0.316], ["2016-01-27", 0.31], ["2016-01-28", 0.315], ["2016-01-28", 0.319], ["2016-01-28", 0.318], ["2016-01-28", 0.301], ["2016-01-31", 0.295], ["2016-02-02", 0.299], ["2016-02-04", 0.303], ["2016-02-04", 0.305], ["2016-02-05", 0.303], ["2016-02-06", 0.297], ["2016-02-09", 0.299], ["2016-02-09", 0.298], ["2016-02-10", 0.301], ["2016-02-10", 0.302], ["2016-02-10", 0.305], ["2016-02-12", 0.306], ["2016-02-15", 0.303], ["2016-02-15", 0.299], ["2016-02-15", 0.303], ["2016-02-16", 0.294], ["2016-02-17", 0.296], ["2016-02-19", 0.298], ["2016-02-19", 0.292], ["2016-02-19", 0.298], ["2016-02-19", 0.3], ["2016-02-20", 0.3], ["2016-02-20", 0.302], ["2016-02-20", 0.303], ["2016-02-20", 0.301], ["2016-02-20", 0.296], ["2016-02-21", 0.289], ["2016-02-22", 0.288], ["2016-02-24", 0.287], ["2016-02-24", 0.287], ["2016-02-25", 0.287], ["2016-02-26", 0.292], ["2016-02-28", 0.302], ["2016-02-28", 0.304], ["2016-02-29", 0.31]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/48/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The decreasing cost and difficulty of genetic engineering have opened up a number of new research fields. One that is highly controversial is "gain of function" (GoF) pathogen research, in which researchers deliberately engineer existing pathogens to increase their virulence, transmissibility, or other qualities.
The goal of such research is to understand the natural pathways by which existing wild pathogens may become more dangerous, so as to enhance our ability to respond, to create better vaccines, etc.
However, there are obvious potential dangers as well, as an accidental release, or deliberate theft of such organisms could create a potential pandemic; even the information published about such efforts could increase the probability of bioterror or bioerror events.
In October 2014, the White house issued a funding pause on such experiments involving influenza and coronaviruses, partly in response to a statement by the Cambridge Working Group that called for a curtailment of experiments to create potential pandemic pathogens in the laboratory, pending a risk and benefit assessment. The White house charged the National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity (NSABB) with commissioning such a report.
That report has recently been posted online by the NSABB and its chosen contractor, Gryphon Scientific.
On January 7-8 the NSABB will meet to consider the analysis and its response to the assessment, which will form a policy recommendation. Further discussion will occur at the National Academy of Sciences on March 10-11.
After these discussions, will the funding restriction of GoF research on Influenza and coronaviruses be lifted (or replaced by something considerably less restrictive) by November 1, 2016? | true | 2016-03-01 | Will the US restore funding for research that creates more dangerous versions of Influenza, MERS and SARS? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-20 | 2015-12-30 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-30", 0.73], ["2015-12-30", 0.705], ["2015-12-31", 0.653], ["2015-12-31", 0.68], ["2016-01-01", 0.668], ["2016-01-01", 0.657], ["2016-01-01", 0.656], ["2016-01-05", 0.61], ["2016-01-08", 0.547], ["2016-01-09", 0.529], ["2016-01-10", 0.548], ["2016-01-12", 0.553], ["2016-01-14", 0.563]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/49/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The catalog of known extrasolar planets is growing rapidly. At last count, NASA's Kepler Mission has generated 4,696 high-quality planet candidates, and thousands more are on the way from NASA's K2 and TESS Missions.
The surge in the planetary census has been almost exclusively driven by transit detections, in which the parent star is observed to undergo a subtle once-per-orbit dimming when a planet passes directly in front of the stellar disk.
Until recently, the Doppler velocity technique was the most productive method for discovering new planets. With the Doppler method, one monitors the shift in the parent star's line-of-sight velocity as it travels around the star-planet center of mass, thus allowing the presence of an unseen planet to be inferred.
The Doppler velocity technique works very well for massive planets that have short-period orbits. When the magnitude of the velocity shift lies below 1 meter per second, however, it becomes very difficult to make secure detections. Recently, a number of high-profile, front-page discoveries have been called into question.
In 2016, will a peer-reviewed paper appear in the literature that announces the detection of a non-transiting extrasolar planet that induces a radial velocity half amplitude for its parent star of less than one meter per second? | true | 2016-01-15 | Low-mass Doppler-detected planet in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-04-15 | 2015-12-31 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-31", 0.68], ["2015-12-31", 0.66], ["2015-12-31", 0.557], ["2016-01-01", 0.56], ["2016-01-01", 0.548], ["2016-01-01", 0.488], ["2016-01-01", 0.512], ["2016-01-01", 0.553], ["2016-01-01", 0.519], ["2016-01-01", 0.526], ["2016-01-02", 0.494], ["2016-01-03", 0.485], ["2016-01-04", 0.442], ["2016-01-05", 0.413], ["2016-01-07", 0.434], ["2016-01-08", 0.442], ["2016-01-08", 0.395], ["2016-01-08", 0.398], ["2016-01-11", 0.414], ["2016-01-11", 0.442], ["2016-01-14", 0.459], ["2016-01-16", 0.441], ["2016-01-19", 0.442], ["2016-01-19", 0.435], ["2016-01-21", 0.431], ["2016-01-21", 0.429], ["2016-01-21", 0.415], ["2016-01-22", 0.424], ["2016-01-22", 0.405], ["2016-01-23", 0.405], ["2016-01-26", 0.403], ["2016-01-26", 0.414], ["2016-01-27", 0.42], ["2016-01-28", 0.42], ["2016-01-28", 0.406], ["2016-01-29", 0.406], ["2016-01-29", 0.403]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/50/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | California is in the midst of a severe drought, following several years of well-below-average rain and snowfall.
There is cause for optimism, however. There is currently a band of warm ocean water in the central and east-central Pacific associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation. The associated meteorological conditions favor the tracking of winter storms into California. Indeed, early-season snowpack measurements in the Sierra Nevada are currently running above average. If strong storms materialize as expected during the coming months, California could see significant relief.
The severity of regional drought conditions is tracked and updated weekly by the National Drought Monitor. As of Dec. 31, 2015, 69% of the state's area is classified as experiencing "extreme" (code D3) or "exceptional" (code D4) drought. The last date at which California was free of such conditions was August 6th, 2013.
On April 15, 2016, will the National Drought Monitor show that California is entirely free of areas experiencing extreme (D3) or exceptional (D4) drought? | true | 2016-01-31 | Will the California drought ease significantly this Winter? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-01 | 2015-12-31 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-31", 0.33], ["2015-12-31", 0.315], ["2016-01-01", 0.333], ["2016-01-01", 0.32], ["2016-01-01", 0.36], ["2016-01-01", 0.332], ["2016-01-01", 0.333], ["2016-01-01", 0.327], ["2016-01-02", 0.316], ["2016-01-03", 0.31], ["2016-01-03", 0.299], ["2016-01-05", 0.362], ["2016-01-05", 0.353], ["2016-01-07", 0.361], ["2016-01-08", 0.359], ["2016-01-12", 0.385], ["2016-01-19", 0.382], ["2016-01-19", 0.377], ["2016-01-20", 0.395], ["2016-01-21", 0.399], ["2016-01-21", 0.4], ["2016-01-22", 0.393], ["2016-01-22", 0.423], ["2016-01-24", 0.42], ["2016-01-25", 0.41], ["2016-01-26", 0.406], ["2016-01-26", 0.399], ["2016-01-26", 0.393], ["2016-01-28", 0.392], ["2016-01-28", 0.392], ["2016-01-28", 0.379], ["2016-01-31", 0.379], ["2016-01-31", 0.377]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/51/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | Note: This question is part of the Metaculus tutorial series on the art and science of making successful quantitative predictions. Additional useful information can be found at the Metaculus FAQ.
California is well-know to be very geologically active, and has in the past experienced major earthquakes: 15 recorded since the mid-19th century above magnitude 7.0. Even a 6.0 earthquake can cause significant damage, and there are 47 listed in the same source.
The USGS maintains a comprehensive searchable data store of past earthquakes around the world. Occurrence of specific earthquakes is notoriously difficult. However, their statistics are fairly well-characterized over long timescales: a reasonable prediction can be obtained by simply dividing taking the number of 6.0 or greater earthquakes that have occurred in the last N years and dividing by N. (For example, the Wikipedia list has 39 since 1900.)
Better estimates would integrate the Poisson probability distribution, would consider incompleteness in the early historical records, would consider correlated Earthquakes in the historical list, etc.
Will (at least one) magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake strike California in 2016?
Feel free to explain your reasoning and numbers! | true | 2016-02-01 | [Tutorial:] Will a magnitude 6.0+ Earthquake hit California this year? | metaculus | 0 |
2022-03-17 | 2016-01-03 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-05", 0.47], ["2016-01-07", 0.592], ["2016-01-09", 0.622], ["2016-01-12", 0.627], ["2016-01-15", 0.679], ["2016-01-19", 0.671], ["2016-01-21", 0.644], ["2016-01-26", 0.639], ["2016-01-28", 0.662], ["2016-01-31", 0.657], ["2016-02-02", 0.653], ["2016-02-04", 0.648], ["2016-02-06", 0.645], ["2016-02-09", 0.641], ["2016-02-11", 0.637], ["2016-02-15", 0.636], ["2016-02-17", 0.619], ["2016-02-19", 0.618], ["2016-02-20", 0.608], ["2016-02-23", 0.622], ["2016-02-28", 0.626], ["2016-02-28", 0.625], ["2016-03-03", 0.625], ["2016-03-04", 0.628], ["2016-03-08", 0.628], ["2016-03-10", 0.629], ["2016-03-12", 0.619], ["2016-03-15", 0.618], ["2016-03-20", 0.617], ["2016-03-22", 0.623], ["2016-03-25", 0.622], ["2016-03-27", 0.613], ["2016-04-01", 0.618], ["2016-04-09", 0.618], ["2016-04-20", 0.621], ["2016-05-12", 0.621], ["2016-05-17", 0.624], ["2016-06-01", 0.623], ["2016-06-06", 0.627], ["2016-06-30", 0.627], ["2016-07-23", 0.623], ["2016-07-26", 0.624], ["2016-07-28", 0.633], ["2016-07-30", 0.639], ["2016-08-06", 0.643], ["2016-08-07", 0.648], ["2016-08-10", 0.648], ["2016-08-13", 0.648], ["2016-08-15", 0.643], ["2016-08-24", 0.636], ["2016-08-28", 0.632], ["2016-08-31", 0.627], ["2016-09-02", 0.629], ["2016-09-04", 0.629], ["2016-09-12", 0.623], ["2016-09-15", 0.624], ["2016-09-18", 0.632], ["2016-09-20", 0.633], ["2016-09-21", 0.64], ["2016-09-26", 0.639], ["2016-09-29", 0.638], ["2016-10-03", 0.637], ["2016-10-08", 0.638], ["2016-10-13", 0.638], ["2016-10-23", 0.638], ["2016-11-23", 0.637], ["2016-11-24", 0.636], ["2016-12-21", 0.635], ["2017-01-24", 0.635], ["2017-01-24", 0.635], ["2017-01-31", 0.632], ["2017-02-05", 0.631], ["2017-04-15", 0.629], ["2017-05-14", 0.629], ["2017-05-14", 0.628], ["2017-05-22", 0.628], ["2017-05-23", 0.628], ["2017-06-09", 0.627], ["2017-06-19", 0.627], ["2017-07-26", 0.628], ["2017-07-28", 0.629], ["2017-08-04", 0.628], ["2017-08-07", 0.629], ["2017-08-12", 0.626], ["2017-08-14", 0.626], ["2017-09-24", 0.626], ["2017-10-03", 0.626], ["2017-10-05", 0.626], ["2017-10-08", 0.625], ["2017-11-07", 0.624], ["2017-11-24", 0.623], ["2017-11-24", 0.623], ["2017-12-07", 0.623], ["2017-12-09", 0.623], ["2017-12-18", 0.62], ["2017-12-21", 0.62], ["2017-12-23", 0.62], ["2017-12-30", 0.62], ["2017-12-31", 0.619], ["2018-01-03", 0.619], ["2018-01-03", 0.619]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/56/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Modern particle accelerators that operate in the high MeV range and above traditionally use radio-frequency (RF) waves to accelerate charged particles. They are typically very expensive and very large; Stanford's linear accelerator stretches 2 miles.
However, in 2013 a proof-of-concept for small scale accelerators was demonstrated, using micro-fabricated dielectric lasers (DLA). DLAs offer a more compact (aspiring to lie anywhere between 10 cm and 100 m) and economic design with an even steeper acceleration gradient (particle energy in eV per meter) than RF accelerators (more on how they work). If successful, the concept would have major impacts on particle accelerator application in medicine, condensed matter, high energy physics, and others.
In November 2015, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation invested $13.5 million towards the research at SLAC to complete a tabletop accelerator prototype over the next 5 years. Will a paper be published in a major physical science journal before January 1, 2021 on a DLA accelerator reporting an acceleration gradient of 1 GeV/meter to within 1 sigma? | true | 2018-01-03 | by 2021, will SLAC complete an "accelerator-on-a-chip" prototype with an acceleration gradient of 1 GeV/meter? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-06-28 | 2016-01-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-01", 0.05], ["2016-02-03", 0.06], ["2016-02-04", 0.082], ["2016-02-07", 0.074], ["2016-02-10", 0.072], ["2016-02-11", 0.101], ["2016-02-15", 0.099], ["2016-02-16", 0.089], ["2016-02-19", 0.093], ["2016-02-20", 0.085], ["2016-02-23", 0.083], ["2016-02-24", 0.081], ["2016-02-28", 0.096], ["2016-02-29", 0.087], ["2016-03-08", 0.085], ["2016-03-10", 0.097], ["2016-03-12", 0.112], ["2016-03-13", 0.129], ["2016-03-21", 0.127], ["2016-03-22", 0.123], ["2016-03-24", 0.123], ["2016-03-26", 0.136], ["2016-03-28", 0.163], ["2016-03-30", 0.174], ["2016-04-02", 0.182], ["2016-04-04", 0.18], ["2016-04-05", 0.18], ["2016-04-07", 0.183], ["2016-04-09", 0.183], ["2016-04-10", 0.187], ["2016-04-11", 0.181], ["2016-04-13", 0.181], ["2016-04-15", 0.185], ["2016-04-27", 0.185], ["2016-04-29", 0.183], ["2016-05-08", 0.182], ["2016-05-09", 0.18], ["2016-05-17", 0.181], ["2016-05-20", 0.181], ["2016-05-22", 0.18], ["2016-05-29", 0.18], ["2016-06-04", 0.18], ["2016-06-06", 0.178], ["2016-06-09", 0.178], ["2016-06-09", 0.182], ["2016-06-15", 0.182], ["2016-06-21", 0.182], ["2016-06-27", 0.181], ["2016-06-29", 0.179], ["2016-06-30", 0.173], ["2016-07-03", 0.172], ["2016-07-08", 0.172], ["2016-07-10", 0.172], ["2016-07-14", 0.172], ["2016-07-18", 0.172], ["2016-07-19", 0.172], ["2016-07-21", 0.171], ["2016-07-23", 0.171], ["2016-07-26", 0.171], ["2016-07-28", 0.17], ["2016-07-30", 0.173], ["2016-07-31", 0.171], ["2016-08-02", 0.166], ["2016-08-04", 0.165], ["2016-08-05", 0.168], ["2016-08-08", 0.172], ["2016-08-10", 0.171], ["2016-08-13", 0.17], ["2016-08-14", 0.17], ["2016-08-19", 0.169], ["2016-08-24", 0.168], ["2016-08-26", 0.168], ["2016-08-29", 0.169], ["2016-08-31", 0.169], ["2016-09-01", 0.168], ["2016-09-03", 0.167], ["2016-09-05", 0.167], ["2016-09-11", 0.166], ["2016-09-12", 0.165], ["2016-09-14", 0.164], ["2016-09-16", 0.163], ["2016-09-18", 0.165], ["2016-09-19", 0.167], ["2016-09-21", 0.165], ["2016-09-25", 0.165], ["2016-09-28", 0.164], ["2016-09-29", 0.164], ["2016-10-03", 0.162], ["2016-10-12", 0.162], ["2016-10-19", 0.162], ["2016-10-21", 0.16], ["2016-10-23", 0.16], ["2016-10-24", 0.158], ["2016-10-31", 0.156], ["2016-10-31", 0.156], ["2016-11-05", 0.158], ["2016-11-05", 0.158], ["2016-11-11", 0.158], ["2016-11-14", 0.157], ["2016-11-23", 0.156], ["2016-11-27", 0.156]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/65/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The idea that nuclear reactions at relatively low temperatures using relatively stable elements has a checkered past. Basic physics makes such phenomena difficult: the electromagnetic repulsion between two nuclei generally prevents fusion unless there is very high energy given to at least one of them, which suggests a very high temperature.
However, that does not mean such processes are physically impossible. For example, "pycnonuclear reactions" can occur at zero temperature and ultrahigh density, muons can catalyze fusion at low temperatures, and the right system can accelerate particles at low temperature up to MeVs over a millimeter.
The possibility of cheap unlimited energy has motivated several groups to pursue the possibility of "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" (LENR) energy production. As featured in a previous question, for the past 4 years, Andrea Rossi has been claiming to make large amounts of heat in his various "E-Cat" reactors, apparently inexplicable in terms of chemical reactions. A somewhat similar LENR project is led by Robert Godes, who runs the company Brillouin Energy. These efforts have generated several websites such as this one tracking news in the field.
There is a strong consensus in the physics community that these LENR efforts have a low probability of being scientifically valid and leading to a useful energy-generation technology. But how low? So we ask:
By Dec. 31, 2018, will Andrea Rossi/Leonardo/Industrial Heat or Robert Godes/Brillouin Energy have produced fairly convincing evidence (> 50% credence) that their new technology that generates substantial excess heat relative to electrical and chemical inputs?
The question resolves in the positive if Huw Price is declared winner of a bet of £1,000 against Carl Shulman's £10,000. The bet will be settled by Price and Shulman by New Years Eve 2018, and in the case of disagreement shall defer to majority vote of a panel of three physicists: Anthony Aguirre, Martin Rees, and Max Tegmark. | true | 2016-12-01 | Will radical new "low-energy nuclear reaction" technologies prove effective before 2019? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-06-28 | 2016-01-11 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-14", 0.7], ["2016-01-14", 0.635], ["2016-01-15", 0.753], ["2016-01-16", 0.73], ["2016-01-18", 0.694], ["2016-01-19", 0.651], ["2016-01-20", 0.623], ["2016-01-21", 0.614], ["2016-01-22", 0.591], ["2016-01-22", 0.584], ["2016-01-23", 0.573], ["2016-01-26", 0.581], ["2016-01-27", 0.563], ["2016-01-27", 0.569], ["2016-01-28", 0.567], ["2016-01-28", 0.59], ["2016-01-29", 0.575], ["2016-01-31", 0.58], ["2016-02-01", 0.573], ["2016-02-02", 0.581], ["2016-02-02", 0.571], ["2016-02-04", 0.551], ["2016-02-04", 0.546], ["2016-02-04", 0.545], ["2016-02-05", 0.544], ["2016-02-06", 0.547], ["2016-02-06", 0.546], ["2016-02-10", 0.546], ["2016-02-10", 0.552], ["2016-02-15", 0.557], ["2016-02-16", 0.547], ["2016-02-18", 0.549], ["2016-02-19", 0.549], ["2016-02-19", 0.549], ["2016-02-20", 0.548], ["2016-02-20", 0.553], ["2016-02-21", 0.553], ["2016-02-21", 0.543], ["2016-02-23", 0.542], ["2016-02-24", 0.539], ["2016-02-28", 0.534], ["2016-02-28", 0.534], ["2016-03-02", 0.542], ["2016-03-02", 0.541], ["2016-03-03", 0.547], ["2016-03-05", 0.548], ["2016-03-09", 0.548], ["2016-03-10", 0.547], ["2016-03-10", 0.55], ["2016-03-11", 0.542], ["2016-03-11", 0.549], ["2016-03-12", 0.549], ["2016-03-13", 0.541], ["2016-03-13", 0.544], ["2016-03-14", 0.544], ["2016-03-15", 0.544], ["2016-03-17", 0.544], ["2016-03-17", 0.546], ["2016-03-18", 0.538], ["2016-03-20", 0.544], ["2016-03-22", 0.546], ["2016-03-22", 0.546], ["2016-03-23", 0.549], ["2016-03-25", 0.545], ["2016-03-29", 0.544], ["2016-03-30", 0.55], ["2016-04-01", 0.545], ["2016-04-04", 0.543], ["2016-04-08", 0.541], ["2016-04-13", 0.541], ["2016-04-14", 0.542], ["2016-04-15", 0.542], ["2016-04-15", 0.543], ["2016-04-17", 0.545], ["2016-04-18", 0.543], ["2016-04-20", 0.539], ["2016-04-26", 0.539], ["2016-05-01", 0.539], ["2016-05-10", 0.537], ["2016-05-10", 0.539], ["2016-05-11", 0.54], ["2016-05-12", 0.545], ["2016-05-13", 0.541], ["2016-05-13", 0.54], ["2016-05-16", 0.541], ["2016-05-16", 0.541], ["2016-05-18", 0.541], ["2016-05-19", 0.541], ["2016-05-25", 0.543], ["2016-06-01", 0.545], ["2016-06-07", 0.545], ["2016-06-07", 0.546], ["2016-06-09", 0.546], ["2016-06-09", 0.546], ["2016-06-11", 0.546], ["2016-06-11", 0.546], ["2016-06-12", 0.547], ["2016-06-12", 0.55], ["2016-06-13", 0.548], ["2016-06-14", 0.548], ["2016-06-15", 0.545]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/71/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In 2013, after several months of hints, Elon Musk and SpaceX released a white paper describing a new mode of transport dubbed the "hyperloop." The design calls for a pod in a low-pressure tube system; the pod rides on a cushion of air to eliminate friction with a track, and the low-pressure tube dramatically reduces air drag.
The resulting design could achieve speeds near 760 miles per hour, taking passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 35 minutes. Compare that to the California High Speed Rail (CHSR) project, still under construction, which aspires to make the same journey in just under three hours at around a quarter of the speed. Musk proposed the Hyperloop as not just a more ambitious and futuristic alternative to CHSR; Hyperloop aspires to be safer, cheaper, and self-powering.
After initial skepticism, a consensus emerged that the Hyperloop idea is credible, and rather rapidly, several independent efforts to develop the Hyperloop concept began. At present, teams from the U.S. and abroad are preparing to present their own Hyperloop designs at the [design weekend] at Texas A&M University. Top designs will be tested at the SpaceX test track (also in construction) in California.
Meanwhile, the other two prominent hyperloop companies, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) and Hyperloop Technologies Inc. (HTI), compete to create their own Hyperloops; these will be operational at subsonic speeds, far below 800 mph but still faster than the CHSR projected speed. This means that prototype hyperloop technology may be demonstrated by one or more organizations as early as 2016.
The basic requirements that we'll use to define a Hyperloop are as follows. A pod or capsule in a tube of at least 2 m cross-section, suspended in an environment at pressures less than 1000 Pascals. A successful test is accomplished if the hyperloop transports a passenger load of at least 50 kg while reaching speeds of at least 300 km/h.
Will there be a successful demonstration of a Hyperloop by June 15, 2017?
(Updated 4/07: dropped acceleration limit of 0.5 g from criteria for success.) | true | 2016-06-15 | Will a successful proof of concept for a hyperloop be demonstrated by mid-2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-02-01 | 2016-01-11 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-11", 0.7], ["2016-01-12", 0.71], ["2016-01-12", 0.67], ["2016-01-12", 0.665], ["2016-01-12", 0.646], ["2016-01-12", 0.665], ["2016-01-12", 0.613], ["2016-01-13", 0.574], ["2016-01-14", 0.552], ["2016-01-15", 0.601], ["2016-01-17", 0.542]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/72/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | North Korea claimed that it had successfully tested a hydrogen bomb last week on January 6th. Seismic data the same day registered 5.1 magnitude body waves, corresponding to estimates that the blast would have contained between 4.7 and 7 kilotons of energy. That energy yield is much smaller that previous tests of H-bombs, which release upwards of 30 kilotons, and the current consensus (1,2) is that the test was not a thermonuclear device. While an H-bomb is most likely ruled out, it still leaves the possibility that North Korea has the capability to design compact nuclear weapons that use boosted fission, in which a relatively small energy release from nuclear fusion catalyzes a higher rate -- and higher yield -- of nuclear fission. A boosted fission nuclear device is still a threatening weapon of mass destruction and indicates a significant technological advance in the North Korean nuclear program.
By February 1, 2016, will a major news source run an article reporting that the blast detected on January 6th is from a boosted fission nuclear weapon? | true | 2016-01-18 | Has North Korea tested a boosted fission nuclear device? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-09-14 | 2016-01-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-14", 0.1], ["2016-01-15", 0.1], ["2016-01-16", 0.087], ["2016-01-16", 0.095], ["2016-01-18", 0.088], ["2016-01-19", 0.105], ["2016-01-19", 0.116], ["2016-01-19", 0.143], ["2016-01-20", 0.131], ["2016-01-20", 0.12], ["2016-01-21", 0.111], ["2016-01-21", 0.125], ["2016-01-21", 0.138], ["2016-01-22", 0.158], ["2016-01-23", 0.149], ["2016-01-23", 0.166], ["2016-01-24", 0.159], ["2016-01-25", 0.151], ["2016-01-26", 0.164], ["2016-01-26", 0.161], ["2016-01-26", 0.155], ["2016-01-27", 0.148], ["2016-01-27", 0.143], ["2016-01-27", 0.143], ["2016-01-28", 0.138], ["2016-01-28", 0.142], ["2016-01-28", 0.141], ["2016-01-28", 0.146], ["2016-01-28", 0.147], ["2016-01-28", 0.142], ["2016-01-30", 0.146], ["2016-01-31", 0.141], ["2016-01-31", 0.14], ["2016-02-01", 0.137], ["2016-02-02", 0.141], ["2016-02-03", 0.141], ["2016-02-03", 0.137], ["2016-02-04", 0.139], ["2016-02-04", 0.141], ["2016-02-05", 0.14], ["2016-02-05", 0.137], ["2016-02-08", 0.135], ["2016-02-08", 0.134], ["2016-02-09", 0.133], ["2016-02-09", 0.134], ["2016-02-09", 0.131], ["2016-02-09", 0.13], ["2016-02-10", 0.128], ["2016-02-10", 0.133], ["2016-02-10", 0.133], ["2016-02-10", 0.13], ["2016-02-10", 0.128], ["2016-02-10", 0.125], ["2016-02-10", 0.124], ["2016-02-11", 0.121], ["2016-02-11", 0.121], ["2016-02-11", 0.121], ["2016-02-13", 0.12], ["2016-02-14", 0.118], ["2016-02-14", 0.118], ["2016-02-14", 0.115], ["2016-02-14", 0.116], ["2016-02-15", 0.117], ["2016-02-15", 0.117], ["2016-02-15", 0.115]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/102/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Ted Koppel, of ABC News and Nightline fame, has been sounding the alarm about the vulnerability of the electrical grids in the U.S. to intentional sabotage.
In his book Lights Out, Koppel argues that the U.S. grid(s) are both so interconnected and so fragile that a well-crafted attack could knock out power for a multi-state region, leaving residents without electric power for months.
For the purposes of this question, an attack with less dramatic impact will do:
Between March 1 and September 1, 2016, will an intentional attack on our electrical power infrastructure knock out power for more than 30% of residents in one of the ten most populous U.S. cities for a period of 72 hours or more?
For a positive resolution, there must be a public statement by either a law enforcement organization or a utility company confirming that the outage was not an accident. | true | 2016-02-15 | Will an attack on the electrical grid cause an extended power outage for a major U.S. city? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-11-18 | 2016-01-14 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-14", 0.65], ["2016-01-15", 0.82], ["2016-01-16", 0.758], ["2016-01-18", 0.732], ["2016-01-19", 0.704], ["2016-01-20", 0.71], ["2016-01-21", 0.635], ["2016-01-23", 0.657], ["2016-01-26", 0.664], ["2016-01-27", 0.635], ["2016-01-28", 0.624], ["2016-01-31", 0.624], ["2016-01-31", 0.628], ["2016-02-01", 0.621], ["2016-02-03", 0.615], ["2016-02-03", 0.593], ["2016-02-04", 0.592], ["2016-02-05", 0.581], ["2016-02-08", 0.589], ["2016-02-09", 0.589], ["2016-02-11", 0.578], ["2016-02-12", 0.58], ["2016-02-15", 0.582], ["2016-02-15", 0.576], ["2016-02-16", 0.564], ["2016-02-17", 0.561], ["2016-02-19", 0.562], ["2016-02-20", 0.562], ["2016-02-20", 0.565], ["2016-02-21", 0.563], ["2016-02-23", 0.566], ["2016-02-24", 0.558], ["2016-02-28", 0.552], ["2016-02-28", 0.55], ["2016-03-02", 0.541], ["2016-03-03", 0.54], ["2016-03-07", 0.534], ["2016-03-08", 0.534], ["2016-03-09", 0.534], ["2016-03-10", 0.53], ["2016-03-11", 0.523], ["2016-03-12", 0.534], ["2016-03-13", 0.537], ["2016-03-13", 0.537], ["2016-03-15", 0.536], ["2016-03-16", 0.538], ["2016-03-18", 0.54], ["2016-03-18", 0.541], ["2016-03-20", 0.541], ["2016-03-21", 0.548], ["2016-03-22", 0.56], ["2016-03-24", 0.562], ["2016-03-26", 0.563], ["2016-03-27", 0.561], ["2016-03-28", 0.561], ["2016-03-29", 0.562], ["2016-03-30", 0.564], ["2016-04-01", 0.566], ["2016-04-02", 0.566], ["2016-04-06", 0.565], ["2016-04-09", 0.565], ["2016-04-09", 0.564], ["2016-04-12", 0.564], ["2016-04-13", 0.56], ["2016-04-14", 0.549], ["2016-04-15", 0.544], ["2016-04-16", 0.541], ["2016-04-18", 0.542], ["2016-04-18", 0.54], ["2016-04-20", 0.536], ["2016-04-23", 0.536], ["2016-04-26", 0.536], ["2016-04-27", 0.536], ["2016-04-28", 0.535], ["2016-04-29", 0.535], ["2016-05-03", 0.535], ["2016-05-03", 0.538], ["2016-05-08", 0.534], ["2016-05-09", 0.538], ["2016-05-16", 0.536], ["2016-05-17", 0.536], ["2016-05-21", 0.535], ["2016-05-23", 0.536], ["2016-05-23", 0.537], ["2016-06-04", 0.537], ["2016-06-04", 0.535], ["2016-06-06", 0.535], ["2016-06-07", 0.536], ["2016-06-08", 0.536], ["2016-06-17", 0.535], ["2016-06-17", 0.534], ["2016-06-20", 0.534], ["2016-06-21", 0.534], ["2016-06-21", 0.533], ["2016-06-24", 0.531], ["2016-06-25", 0.53], ["2016-06-26", 0.526], ["2016-06-27", 0.524], ["2016-06-29", 0.512], ["2016-06-30", 0.504], ["2016-06-30", 0.498]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/106/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Turing Test (aka the "Imitation Game") is a well-known thought experiment as well as an actual test that can be done on computer programs that converse via text. The idea is simple: a human judge converses with the machine, and if it cannot discern the machine from a human conversant, then the machine has "passed."
No conversing system (or "Chatbot") has passed the Turing test (despite some reports), but they are getting better. Each year there is an annual competition in artificial intelligence for the Loebner Prize, which awards a bronze-level prize to the most human chatbox, and offers a silver- and gold-level prizes for actually passing versions of the full Turing test.
To qualify for the conversation test, chatbot contestants answer 20 open-ended questions designed by a panel. The questions are new each year, and the same questions offered to each chatbot. You can see the 2014 and 2015 questions here, along with the answers that each of 15-20 chatbots gave.
Some of the chatbots give pretty convincing answers to many of the questions, scoring as much as 89% in the contest's scoring system. Examination suggests a typical human would easily score 100% most of the time.
As a step toward passing a full Turing test, in the 2016 or 2017 competitions, will a chatbot score 100% in the 20-question preliminary round? | true | 2016-07-01 | Will an AI successfully masquerade as human for 20 questions by 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-31 | 2016-01-18 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-18", 0.8], ["2016-01-18", 0.775], ["2016-01-19", 0.83], ["2016-01-19", 0.785], ["2016-01-19", 0.808], ["2016-01-19", 0.748], ["2016-01-19", 0.788], ["2016-01-20", 0.704], ["2016-01-20", 0.617], ["2016-01-21", 0.616], ["2016-01-21", 0.609], ["2016-01-22", 0.563], ["2016-01-22", 0.562], ["2016-01-23", 0.562], ["2016-01-23", 0.557], ["2016-01-26", 0.529], ["2016-01-26", 0.534], ["2016-01-26", 0.538], ["2016-01-27", 0.547], ["2016-01-27", 0.541], ["2016-01-28", 0.541], ["2016-01-28", 0.541], ["2016-01-28", 0.546], ["2016-01-28", 0.523], ["2016-01-28", 0.513], ["2016-01-30", 0.512], ["2016-01-30", 0.513], ["2016-01-31", 0.519], ["2016-02-02", 0.52], ["2016-02-02", 0.505], ["2016-02-02", 0.497], ["2016-02-02", 0.493], ["2016-02-03", 0.494], ["2016-02-03", 0.482], ["2016-02-04", 0.48], ["2016-02-04", 0.495], ["2016-02-04", 0.492], ["2016-02-05", 0.498], ["2016-02-05", 0.506], ["2016-02-05", 0.514], ["2016-02-05", 0.535], ["2016-02-06", 0.538], ["2016-02-06", 0.543], ["2016-02-07", 0.557], ["2016-02-08", 0.562], ["2016-02-08", 0.568], ["2016-02-09", 0.577], ["2016-02-09", 0.58], ["2016-02-09", 0.588], ["2016-02-09", 0.591], ["2016-02-09", 0.59], ["2016-02-09", 0.59], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-10", 0.617], ["2016-02-10", 0.597], ["2016-02-10", 0.595], ["2016-02-10", 0.597], ["2016-02-10", 0.595], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-10", 0.595], ["2016-02-10", 0.582], ["2016-02-10", 0.587], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-10", 0.597], ["2016-02-10", 0.599], ["2016-02-10", 0.599], ["2016-02-10", 0.599], ["2016-02-10", 0.603], ["2016-02-10", 0.606], ["2016-02-10", 0.602], ["2016-02-10", 0.603], ["2016-02-10", 0.607], ["2016-02-10", 0.596], ["2016-02-10", 0.603], ["2016-02-10", 0.602], ["2016-02-10", 0.605], ["2016-02-10", 0.604], ["2016-02-10", 0.606], ["2016-02-10", 0.609], ["2016-02-10", 0.607], ["2016-02-10", 0.614], ["2016-02-10", 0.612], ["2016-02-11", 0.614], ["2016-02-11", 0.615], ["2016-02-11", 0.621], ["2016-02-11", 0.622], ["2016-02-11", 0.624], ["2016-02-11", 0.626], ["2016-02-11", 0.632], ["2016-02-11", 0.627], ["2016-02-11", 0.633], ["2016-02-11", 0.635], ["2016-02-11", 0.627], ["2016-02-11", 0.632], ["2016-02-11", 0.638], ["2016-02-11", 0.637], ["2016-02-11", 0.646], ["2016-02-11", 0.647], ["2016-02-11", 0.648]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/107/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) re-opened in September 2015 after a significant upgrade.
Designed with 10x greater sensitivity and a wider range of covered frequencies than the original LIGO, advanced LIGO should, according to its designers, have an "enhanced physics reach that during its first several hours of operation will exceed the integrated observations of the 1 year LIGO Science Run."
A full description of the experiment in gory detail can be found here.
Calculations of the expected detection rates suggest tens and potentially hundreds of detectable events per year under reasonable assumptions about neutron star and other types of binaries (and of course assuming General Relativity is correct, etc.)
Rumors have been flying that detections have happened.
Will the LIGO experiment publicly announce a 5-sigma (or equivalent) discovery of astrophysical gravitational waves by March 31, 2016? | true | 2016-02-11 | Will the advanced LIGO team announce the discovery of gravitational waves by end of March? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-07-05 | 2016-01-18 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-22", 0.63], ["2016-01-23", 0.498], ["2016-01-26", 0.496], ["2016-01-27", 0.463], ["2016-01-28", 0.485], ["2016-01-31", 0.507], ["2016-01-31", 0.514], ["2016-02-02", 0.53], ["2016-02-04", 0.513], ["2016-02-04", 0.507], ["2016-02-08", 0.507], ["2016-02-09", 0.507], ["2016-02-10", 0.5], ["2016-02-11", 0.492], ["2016-02-15", 0.489], ["2016-02-16", 0.484], ["2016-02-17", 0.484], ["2016-02-18", 0.482], ["2016-02-20", 0.486], ["2016-02-22", 0.472], ["2016-02-23", 0.463], ["2016-02-28", 0.46], ["2016-02-28", 0.46], ["2016-03-02", 0.461], ["2016-03-03", 0.451], ["2016-03-07", 0.448], ["2016-03-10", 0.445], ["2016-03-12", 0.447], ["2016-03-13", 0.446], ["2016-03-15", 0.442], ["2016-03-19", 0.442], ["2016-03-20", 0.441], ["2016-03-21", 0.436], ["2016-03-22", 0.436], ["2016-03-27", 0.437], ["2016-03-29", 0.437], ["2016-03-30", 0.43], ["2016-04-01", 0.428], ["2016-04-06", 0.427], ["2016-04-07", 0.426], ["2016-04-08", 0.426], ["2016-04-15", 0.429], ["2016-04-18", 0.43], ["2016-04-18", 0.43], ["2016-04-20", 0.428], ["2016-04-22", 0.426], ["2016-04-22", 0.423], ["2016-08-31", 0.421], ["2016-09-01", 0.414], ["2016-09-02", 0.421], ["2016-09-03", 0.425], ["2016-09-12", 0.421], ["2016-09-14", 0.418], ["2016-09-16", 0.416], ["2016-09-17", 0.422], ["2016-09-18", 0.422], ["2016-09-20", 0.418], ["2016-09-21", 0.407], ["2016-09-24", 0.412], ["2016-09-26", 0.413], ["2016-09-28", 0.411], ["2016-10-01", 0.409], ["2016-10-03", 0.412], ["2016-10-07", 0.409], ["2016-10-08", 0.412], ["2016-10-12", 0.412], ["2016-10-14", 0.409], ["2016-10-18", 0.41], ["2016-10-19", 0.41], ["2016-10-21", 0.406], ["2016-10-27", 0.408], ["2016-11-23", 0.408], ["2016-12-07", 0.408], ["2016-12-21", 0.408], ["2016-12-22", 0.408], ["2017-01-01", 0.407], ["2017-01-05", 0.41], ["2017-01-06", 0.41], ["2017-01-08", 0.406], ["2017-01-24", 0.406], ["2017-01-25", 0.404], ["2017-03-11", 0.406], ["2017-03-24", 0.407], ["2017-04-15", 0.407], ["2017-04-16", 0.408], ["2017-04-19", 0.407], ["2017-04-26", 0.407], ["2017-05-01", 0.409], ["2017-05-02", 0.408], ["2017-05-14", 0.408], ["2017-05-20", 0.408], ["2017-05-24", 0.409], ["2017-05-27", 0.409], ["2017-05-27", 0.409], ["2017-05-31", 0.41], ["2017-06-01", 0.415], ["2017-06-03", 0.416], ["2017-06-05", 0.416], ["2017-06-09", 0.415], ["2017-06-14", 0.415], ["2017-06-14", 0.415]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/108/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | Ride sharing company Uber is being sued in June 2016 in a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit is intended to deal with drivers' claims that they are misclassified as independent contractors, rather than employees. The current definition of Uber's workers has several important legal implications, including whether the company or drivers pay for gas, insurance, vehicle upkeep, and other costs, conditions of hiring and firing drivers, ability to take tips, collective bargaining protections, etc.
Noted class-action labor lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan is leading the efforts of the lawsuit, and she has been raising labor rights issues with other companies with business models similar to Uber's. Arguing that the corpus of Uber drivers, sourced from the general population, does not qualify as a class lies at the core of Uber's fight against the case. Uber also argues that the lawsuit is against the interests of the workers, that establishing the drivers as employees will remove the flexibility of their scheduling.
A ruling against Uber would change Uber's business model and have significant economic impact on the company as well as the sharing market. The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial this June.
Will the trial be completed, and rule that Uber drivers have been misclassified as contractors?
To resolve as positive, the case must litigated through to a bench or jury verdict, there having been no settlement, and Uber's appeal of the certification of the class having been denied with finality. Also, this question regards only the case before judge Edward Chen, and not any subsequent appeals or parallel cases. | true | 2017-06-15 | Will Uber drivers win a class-action lawsuit to define them as employees? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-01 | 2016-01-19 | ["https://wordleplay.io/"] | binary | [["2016-01-20", 0.68], ["2016-01-20", 0.618], ["2016-01-21", 0.586], ["2016-01-21", 0.581], ["2016-01-21", 0.556], ["2016-01-21", 0.559], ["2016-01-22", 0.549], ["2016-01-22", 0.538], ["2016-01-22", 0.531], ["2016-01-22", 0.534], ["2016-01-22", 0.518], ["2016-01-23", 0.523], ["2016-01-23", 0.527], ["2016-01-23", 0.52], ["2016-01-24", 0.519], ["2016-01-24", 0.521], ["2016-01-24", 0.527], ["2016-01-24", 0.535], ["2016-01-25", 0.536], ["2016-01-25", 0.534], ["2016-01-25", 0.541], ["2016-01-25", 0.535], ["2016-01-26", 0.536], ["2016-01-26", 0.532], ["2016-01-26", 0.535], ["2016-01-26", 0.542], ["2016-01-27", 0.54], ["2016-01-27", 0.539], ["2016-01-27", 0.539], ["2016-01-27", 0.529], ["2016-01-28", 0.529], ["2016-01-28", 0.529], ["2016-01-29", 0.526], ["2016-01-29", 0.523], ["2016-01-29", 0.522], ["2016-01-30", 0.524], ["2016-01-30", 0.527], ["2016-01-31", 0.529], ["2016-01-31", 0.531], ["2016-02-01", 0.53], ["2016-02-02", 0.527], ["2016-02-02", 0.527], ["2016-02-03", 0.524], ["2016-02-03", 0.518], ["2016-02-04", 0.517], ["2016-02-04", 0.517], ["2016-02-04", 0.513], ["2016-02-05", 0.514], ["2016-02-05", 0.513], ["2016-02-05", 0.51], ["2016-02-08", 0.509], ["2016-02-09", 0.508], ["2016-02-09", 0.509], ["2016-02-09", 0.509], ["2016-02-09", 0.508], ["2016-02-10", 0.508], ["2016-02-11", 0.505], ["2016-02-11", 0.503], ["2016-02-11", 0.502], ["2016-02-11", 0.496], ["2016-02-12", 0.496], ["2016-02-12", 0.495], ["2016-02-14", 0.493], ["2016-02-14", 0.493], ["2016-02-15", 0.493], ["2016-02-15", 0.49], ["2016-02-15", 0.488], ["2016-02-16", 0.482], ["2016-02-16", 0.48], ["2016-02-16", 0.479], ["2016-02-16", 0.474], ["2016-02-17", 0.472], ["2016-02-17", 0.474], ["2016-02-17", 0.474], ["2016-02-17", 0.477], ["2016-02-18", 0.476], ["2016-02-18", 0.476], ["2016-02-19", 0.475], ["2016-02-19", 0.475], ["2016-02-19", 0.474], ["2016-02-19", 0.472], ["2016-02-20", 0.471], ["2016-02-20", 0.471], ["2016-02-20", 0.469], ["2016-02-20", 0.468], ["2016-02-21", 0.466], ["2016-02-21", 0.463], ["2016-02-22", 0.461], ["2016-02-23", 0.46], ["2016-02-24", 0.459], ["2016-02-24", 0.459], ["2016-02-26", 0.458], ["2016-02-26", 0.458], ["2016-02-26", 0.458], ["2016-02-26", 0.457], ["2016-02-28", 0.456], ["2016-02-28", 0.456], ["2016-02-28", 0.456], ["2016-02-28", 0.456], ["2016-02-29", 0.456], ["2016-02-29", 0.455]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/109/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In a provocative new paper published in the Astronomical Journal (see typical news story), two Caltech professors -- Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown -- propose the existence of a new, but as-yet unseen, planet in the outer solar system. This world, tentatively dubbed "Planet Nine", is predicted to have a mass ten times that of Earth, an orbital period of about 20,000 years, and a large eccentricity (e~0.6).
The evidence for Planet Nine is indirect, and is based on alignments of known Kuiper Belt objects that are very difficult to explain through simple chance occurrence. In essence, the presence of the new planet is inferred through the gravitational sculpting that it has produced in the trajectories of small objects that lie beyond Neptune's orbit.
The current distance to Planet Nine is likely about a thousand times the Earth-Sun distance, and so if it exists, it is quite faint, explaining why it has thus far gone unnoticed. Its detection would be possible, but would require a systematic search using large telescopes such as the Keck Observatory or Subaru Observatory telescopes on Mauna Kea.
Will the discovery by direct observation of a new solar system planet having characteristics substantially similar to those described in the Batygin-Brown paper be announced in a peer-reviewed paper prior to Dec. 31, 2016?
(For this question to resolve as "Yes", the new planet should have an inferred radius larger than that of Earth, an orbital period greater than 5,000 years, and an orbital eccentricity e > 0.25). | true | 2016-02-29 | Will "Planet Nine" be discovered in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-01 | 2016-01-22 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-01", 0.1], ["2016-03-01", 0.35], ["2016-03-01", 0.3], ["2016-03-01", 0.275], ["2016-03-01", 0.318], ["2016-03-01", 0.31], ["2016-03-01", 0.292], ["2016-03-01", 0.257], ["2016-03-01", 0.244], ["2016-03-01", 0.256], ["2016-03-01", 0.255], ["2016-03-01", 0.266], ["2016-03-02", 0.276], ["2016-03-02", 0.268], ["2016-03-02", 0.266], ["2016-03-02", 0.259], ["2016-03-02", 0.251], ["2016-03-02", 0.236], ["2016-03-03", 0.239], ["2016-03-03", 0.246], ["2016-03-03", 0.253], ["2016-03-03", 0.252], ["2016-03-03", 0.239], ["2016-03-03", 0.242], ["2016-03-03", 0.255], ["2016-03-03", 0.248], ["2016-03-04", 0.248], ["2016-03-05", 0.254], ["2016-03-05", 0.267], ["2016-03-08", 0.27], ["2016-03-08", 0.267], ["2016-03-08", 0.265], ["2016-03-08", 0.264], ["2016-03-08", 0.267], ["2016-03-09", 0.258], ["2016-03-10", 0.258], ["2016-03-10", 0.255], ["2016-03-11", 0.254], ["2016-03-12", 0.256], ["2016-03-12", 0.257], ["2016-03-12", 0.257], ["2016-03-13", 0.255], ["2016-03-14", 0.255], ["2016-03-16", 0.255], ["2016-03-17", 0.258], ["2016-03-18", 0.26], ["2016-03-20", 0.269], ["2016-03-20", 0.271], ["2016-03-25", 0.269], ["2016-03-27", 0.271], ["2016-03-28", 0.268], ["2016-03-29", 0.268], ["2016-04-01", 0.269], ["2016-04-04", 0.266], ["2016-04-09", 0.267], ["2016-04-09", 0.273], ["2016-04-13", 0.28], ["2016-04-13", 0.295], ["2016-04-13", 0.295], ["2016-04-13", 0.309], ["2016-04-14", 0.308], ["2016-04-14", 0.308], ["2016-04-14", 0.31], ["2016-04-15", 0.308], ["2016-04-15", 0.304], ["2016-04-15", 0.301], ["2016-04-15", 0.3], ["2016-04-15", 0.299], ["2016-04-15", 0.312], ["2016-04-17", 0.307], ["2016-04-19", 0.311], ["2016-04-20", 0.306], ["2016-04-21", 0.306], ["2016-04-26", 0.302], ["2016-04-28", 0.3], ["2016-05-03", 0.297], ["2016-05-06", 0.298], ["2016-05-08", 0.299], ["2016-05-10", 0.3], ["2016-05-17", 0.301], ["2016-05-18", 0.303], ["2016-05-18", 0.302], ["2016-05-19", 0.302], ["2016-05-20", 0.301], ["2016-05-23", 0.3], ["2016-05-25", 0.297], ["2016-05-30", 0.285], ["2016-05-31", 0.284]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/110/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | NASA’s Kepler Mission revealed that the star KIC 8462852, a.k.a. "Tabby's Star" displays severe, aperiodic dips in brightness that have so far defied conventional astrophysical explanations.
Several explanations for this behavior have been put forward, ranging from [a family of comets] to a swarm of artificial, orbiting “megastructures.”
To add to the mystery, an analysis of historical plate data indicates this star has dimmed by nearly 0.2 magnitudes, which is "unprecedented" for a star of this type. (This analysis has been criticized at potentially being due to calibration error in the photographic plates.)
Searches for radio or other signals from the star, featured in a previous question, have as yet turned up nothing of note. As of March 01, 2016, no consensus explanation of this star's behavior has emerged.
Will a consensus emerge in 2016?
We'll use the following criteria to specify consensus. Let N be the number of refereed published journal papers that:
provide an explanation for the aperiodic dips seen in KIC 8462852, and
are cited by at least one published paper, or two preprints, supporting their explanation with additional analysis and/or data, and
are cited at least 5 times in total, and
are not cited by a published, refereed paper refuting the given explanation.
If N=1 we will consider a consensus to have been reached. If N > 1, and if all of the explanations are qualitatively the same, i.e. involving the same essential physics and objects (e.g. "Comet breakup"), we will also consider consensus to have been reached. Otherwise, we will consider that consensus has not yet been reached. | true | 2016-06-01 | Will a consensus explanation of the strange behavior of the star KIC 8462852 emerge this year? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-04-01 | 2016-01-27 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-28", 0.75], ["2016-01-28", 0.773], ["2016-01-29", 0.744], ["2016-01-30", 0.732], ["2016-01-30", 0.734], ["2016-01-31", 0.71], ["2016-01-31", 0.702], ["2016-02-01", 0.708], ["2016-02-01", 0.723], ["2016-02-02", 0.731], ["2016-02-02", 0.725], ["2016-02-02", 0.697], ["2016-02-03", 0.708], ["2016-02-03", 0.706], ["2016-02-03", 0.709], ["2016-02-04", 0.699], ["2016-02-04", 0.699], ["2016-02-04", 0.697], ["2016-02-05", 0.682], ["2016-02-05", 0.673], ["2016-02-06", 0.663], ["2016-02-06", 0.665], ["2016-02-07", 0.669], ["2016-02-08", 0.663], ["2016-02-08", 0.662], ["2016-02-09", 0.654], ["2016-02-09", 0.66], ["2016-02-10", 0.658], ["2016-02-10", 0.661], ["2016-02-10", 0.646], ["2016-02-10", 0.647], ["2016-02-11", 0.64], ["2016-02-11", 0.644], ["2016-02-12", 0.637], ["2016-02-12", 0.635], ["2016-02-13", 0.633], ["2016-02-14", 0.637], ["2016-02-14", 0.642], ["2016-02-15", 0.64], ["2016-02-15", 0.639], ["2016-02-15", 0.626], ["2016-02-16", 0.626], ["2016-02-16", 0.629], ["2016-02-16", 0.625], ["2016-02-16", 0.625], ["2016-02-16", 0.621], ["2016-02-17", 0.624], ["2016-02-17", 0.624], ["2016-02-17", 0.631], ["2016-02-17", 0.629], ["2016-02-18", 0.627], ["2016-02-18", 0.628], ["2016-02-19", 0.626], ["2016-02-19", 0.63], ["2016-02-19", 0.627], ["2016-02-19", 0.616], ["2016-02-19", 0.613], ["2016-02-20", 0.619], ["2016-02-20", 0.625], ["2016-02-20", 0.627], ["2016-02-20", 0.617], ["2016-02-21", 0.615], ["2016-02-21", 0.611], ["2016-02-22", 0.613], ["2016-02-22", 0.613], ["2016-02-23", 0.608], ["2016-02-23", 0.607], ["2016-02-23", 0.603], ["2016-02-24", 0.601], ["2016-02-24", 0.601], ["2016-02-25", 0.602], ["2016-02-27", 0.602], ["2016-02-27", 0.603], ["2016-02-27", 0.598], ["2016-02-28", 0.6], ["2016-02-28", 0.602], ["2016-02-28", 0.6], ["2016-02-28", 0.6], ["2016-02-29", 0.604], ["2016-02-29", 0.605], ["2016-02-29", 0.609], ["2016-02-29", 0.61], ["2016-03-01", 0.612], ["2016-03-01", 0.613], ["2016-03-02", 0.612], ["2016-03-02", 0.616], ["2016-03-02", 0.617], ["2016-03-03", 0.614], ["2016-03-03", 0.617], ["2016-03-04", 0.617], ["2016-03-04", 0.617], ["2016-03-04", 0.617], ["2016-03-05", 0.614], ["2016-03-05", 0.615], ["2016-03-06", 0.616], ["2016-03-07", 0.616], ["2016-03-07", 0.616], ["2016-03-07", 0.611], ["2016-03-07", 0.612], ["2016-03-08", 0.612], ["2016-03-08", 0.613]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/112/ | The game of Go originated in China more than 2,500 years ago. While similar to chess in many ways, Go is much more minimalist in its ruleset and more esoteric in strategy. The aspect of pattern recognition and the huge state space of possible moves in Go (vastly greater than chess) make it an excellent metric for the capabilities of artifical intelligence.
Whereas [DeepBlue defeated chess grandmaster Gary Kasparov] in 1997, it has taken 20 years for computer Go systems to become competitive with top human players. Recently, dramatic advances in ["deep learning"] AI systems have led to the development of much more competitive Go software.
In a [previous question] we asked if a computer Go system would defeat a professional player in 2016. In this question the stakes go up.
Google's [DeepMind] recently [announced] that their Go-playing program [AlphaGo] defeated European Go champion Fan Hui in a closed-door game, and will be playing against the reigning Go world champion, Lee Sedol, in a five-game match in March. Will AlphaGo win? | Science & Tech | This question will resolve positively if AlphaGo finishes five official games against Lee Sedol and wins three or more games, or if Lee Sedol concedes defeat. If AlphaGo loses or if the match is not finished by April 1 2016, the question resolves negatively. | true | 2016-03-08 | Will Google's AlphaGo beat Go player Lee Sedol in March 2016? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-01-04 | 2016-02-02 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-03", 0.1], ["2016-02-03", 0.1], ["2016-02-03", 0.07], ["2016-02-04", 0.055], ["2016-02-04", 0.108], ["2016-02-04", 0.092], ["2016-02-04", 0.087], ["2016-02-04", 0.116], ["2016-02-04", 0.167], ["2016-02-05", 0.155], ["2016-02-05", 0.142], ["2016-02-06", 0.152], ["2016-02-06", 0.187], ["2016-02-06", 0.177], ["2016-02-06", 0.18], ["2016-02-07", 0.189], ["2016-02-09", 0.196], ["2016-02-10", 0.197], ["2016-02-10", 0.201], ["2016-02-10", 0.206], ["2016-02-11", 0.206], ["2016-02-14", 0.213], ["2016-02-15", 0.21], ["2016-02-15", 0.202], ["2016-02-15", 0.232], ["2016-02-19", 0.235], ["2016-02-19", 0.238], ["2016-02-20", 0.237], ["2016-02-20", 0.24], ["2016-02-20", 0.245], ["2016-02-20", 0.256], ["2016-02-20", 0.252], ["2016-02-21", 0.244], ["2016-02-28", 0.259], ["2016-02-28", 0.261], ["2016-02-29", 0.263], ["2016-03-05", 0.263], ["2016-03-06", 0.268], ["2016-03-08", 0.267], ["2016-03-09", 0.265], ["2016-03-10", 0.266], ["2016-03-11", 0.267], ["2016-03-12", 0.266], ["2016-03-13", 0.283], ["2016-03-13", 0.285], ["2016-03-17", 0.286], ["2016-03-18", 0.291], ["2016-03-20", 0.294], ["2016-03-22", 0.295], ["2016-03-25", 0.296], ["2016-03-27", 0.299], ["2016-03-28", 0.297], ["2016-03-30", 0.313], ["2016-04-02", 0.313], ["2016-04-08", 0.311], ["2016-04-26", 0.305], ["2016-04-26", 0.305], ["2016-04-26", 0.301], ["2016-05-16", 0.303], ["2016-05-17", 0.303], ["2016-05-25", 0.308], ["2016-05-29", 0.308], ["2016-05-30", 0.302], ["2016-05-30", 0.306], ["2016-05-31", 0.295], ["2016-05-31", 0.293], ["2016-05-31", 0.297], ["2016-05-31", 0.297], ["2016-06-01", 0.297], ["2016-06-01", 0.298]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/122/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Modern theories of quantum gravity are generally thought to only be testable at the Planck scale - very high energies or very small distances beyond our current technological scope. However, in the past five years proposals have been made for tabletop experiments for quantum gravity. These experiments won't need to access Planck scale physics; rather, they could use recently successful laboratory techniques (1, 2) for manipulating macroscopic quantum systems, and attempt to observe quantum gravity phenomona in these systems.
Italian group Belenchia et al propose using opto-mechanical quantum oscillators to measure a specific predicted effect of quantum gravity. Opto-mechanical oscillators are macroscopic objects, like highly reflective silicone mirrors on springs, whose motions can be controlled by pulses of electromagnetic radiation. Belenchia et al explain that the specific effect to look for is a periodic squeezing, or localization of the oscillating component's position; the overall motion will no longer be simple harmonic oscillation, due to corrections from gravitational effects. Another paper by Australian group Gan et al also outlines the feasibility of testing quantum gravity in an opto-mechanical setting.
The design of these flavor of experiments is within technical scope, as claimed by the papers, albeit challenging. The opto-mechanical system must be supercooled into a highly quantum mechanical state and extremely precise measurements of the oscillator must be made. More importantly, the underlying concept's validity still needs to be explored through the peer review process.
Can opto-mechanical systems of the proposed type interestingly constrain quantum gravity models?
This question will resolve positively if the following are satisfied:
(a) either the Belanchia or Gan paper receives 10 or more citations on Google Scholar by the end of 2016
(b) an experimental physics paper is published by January 1, 2018 which cites either of the above articles and mentions opto-mechanics to study quantum gravity in the abstract. | true | 2016-06-01 | Can quantum gravity be interestingly constrained using tabletop experiments? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-18 | 2016-02-04 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-08", 0.35], ["2016-02-09", 0.574], ["2016-02-10", 0.561], ["2016-02-11", 0.561], ["2016-02-13", 0.552], ["2016-02-14", 0.554], ["2016-02-16", 0.624], ["2016-02-18", 0.638], ["2016-02-20", 0.676], ["2016-02-22", 0.685], ["2016-02-23", 0.689], ["2016-02-25", 0.687], ["2016-02-27", 0.69], ["2016-02-29", 0.695], ["2016-03-01", 0.693], ["2016-03-03", 0.701], ["2016-03-05", 0.701], ["2016-03-07", 0.701], ["2016-03-08", 0.701], ["2016-03-10", 0.714], ["2016-03-12", 0.721], ["2016-03-14", 0.712], ["2016-03-16", 0.713], ["2016-03-17", 0.714], ["2016-03-19", 0.713], ["2016-03-20", 0.714], ["2016-03-22", 0.728], ["2016-03-23", 0.728], ["2016-03-25", 0.729], ["2016-03-27", 0.73], ["2016-03-29", 0.731], ["2016-03-30", 0.731], ["2016-04-01", 0.735], ["2016-04-02", 0.738], ["2016-04-03", 0.737], ["2016-04-05", 0.736], ["2016-04-06", 0.735], ["2016-04-08", 0.739], ["2016-04-10", 0.741], ["2016-04-11", 0.741], ["2016-04-12", 0.742], ["2016-04-14", 0.733], ["2016-04-15", 0.739], ["2016-04-17", 0.741], ["2016-04-18", 0.737], ["2016-04-20", 0.738], ["2016-04-23", 0.738], ["2016-04-23", 0.739], ["2016-04-25", 0.739], ["2016-04-27", 0.743], ["2016-04-27", 0.745], ["2016-04-29", 0.746], ["2016-05-01", 0.744], ["2016-05-03", 0.744], ["2016-05-04", 0.747], ["2016-05-08", 0.747], ["2016-05-10", 0.748], ["2016-05-12", 0.75], ["2016-05-15", 0.751], ["2016-05-17", 0.757], ["2016-05-19", 0.763], ["2016-05-22", 0.764], ["2016-05-24", 0.764], ["2016-05-25", 0.765], ["2016-05-30", 0.766], ["2016-05-31", 0.766], ["2016-06-02", 0.768], ["2016-06-04", 0.768], ["2016-06-05", 0.768], ["2016-06-06", 0.766], ["2016-06-08", 0.766], ["2016-06-11", 0.766], ["2016-06-13", 0.764], ["2016-06-14", 0.766], ["2016-06-17", 0.766], ["2016-06-18", 0.767], ["2016-06-20", 0.768], ["2016-06-21", 0.77], ["2016-06-23", 0.77], ["2016-06-24", 0.77], ["2016-06-26", 0.771], ["2016-06-27", 0.77], ["2016-06-29", 0.77], ["2016-07-01", 0.769], ["2016-07-03", 0.77], ["2016-07-04", 0.77], ["2016-07-05", 0.77], ["2016-07-07", 0.771], ["2016-07-09", 0.774], ["2016-07-11", 0.773], ["2016-07-12", 0.775], ["2016-07-15", 0.772], ["2016-07-16", 0.771], ["2016-07-18", 0.771], ["2016-07-20", 0.772], ["2016-07-21", 0.773], ["2016-07-23", 0.775], ["2016-07-25", 0.775], ["2016-07-27", 0.775], ["2016-07-29", 0.774], ["2016-07-31", 0.773]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/126/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | Climate change driven largely by increased atmospheric levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, is generating an upward trend to the global average surface temperature, as exhibited in this summary plot
Last year (2015) the average temperature set new record highs by a large margin, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS) data analysis.
Will 2016 again set a new record? Or will it fall below the level of 2015?
This will resolve in the positive if the NASA GISS global average temperature for 2016 is published above that of 2015. | true | 2016-07-31 | Will 2016 be the warmest year on record? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-01-09 | 2016-02-07 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-10", 0.45], ["2016-02-10", 0.43], ["2016-02-10", 0.403], ["2016-02-10", 0.305], ["2016-02-10", 0.304], ["2016-02-10", 0.314], ["2016-02-10", 0.337], ["2016-02-10", 0.317], ["2016-02-10", 0.339], ["2016-02-10", 0.349], ["2016-02-10", 0.358], ["2016-02-10", 0.344], ["2016-02-10", 0.351], ["2016-02-11", 0.357], ["2016-02-11", 0.362], ["2016-02-11", 0.365], ["2016-02-13", 0.386], ["2016-02-13", 0.376], ["2016-02-14", 0.379], ["2016-02-15", 0.375], ["2016-02-15", 0.368], ["2016-02-15", 0.355], ["2016-02-16", 0.35], ["2016-02-16", 0.35], ["2016-02-18", 0.353], ["2016-02-19", 0.355], ["2016-02-19", 0.351], ["2016-02-19", 0.361], ["2016-02-19", 0.36], ["2016-02-19", 0.36], ["2016-02-19", 0.362], ["2016-02-20", 0.363], ["2016-02-20", 0.365], ["2016-02-20", 0.361], ["2016-02-20", 0.364], ["2016-02-20", 0.359], ["2016-02-21", 0.349], ["2016-02-22", 0.339], ["2016-02-23", 0.337], ["2016-02-28", 0.348], ["2016-02-28", 0.35], ["2016-03-05", 0.351], ["2016-03-05", 0.348], ["2016-03-07", 0.348], ["2016-03-09", 0.347], ["2016-03-11", 0.347], ["2016-03-11", 0.343], ["2016-03-12", 0.341], ["2016-03-13", 0.356], ["2016-03-15", 0.369], ["2016-03-16", 0.37], ["2016-03-18", 0.366], ["2016-03-22", 0.368], ["2016-03-22", 0.368], ["2016-03-30", 0.382], ["2016-04-02", 0.382], ["2016-04-08", 0.377], ["2016-04-13", 0.377], ["2016-04-15", 0.378], ["2016-04-16", 0.378], ["2016-04-18", 0.375], ["2016-04-19", 0.378], ["2016-04-22", 0.378], ["2016-05-03", 0.377], ["2016-05-04", 0.376], ["2016-05-16", 0.376], ["2016-05-17", 0.377], ["2016-06-01", 0.375], ["2016-06-07", 0.371], ["2016-06-08", 0.371], ["2016-06-08", 0.371], ["2016-06-17", 0.369], ["2016-06-20", 0.369], ["2016-06-20", 0.367], ["2016-06-26", 0.355], ["2016-06-26", 0.351], ["2016-06-26", 0.351], ["2016-06-28", 0.351], ["2016-06-28", 0.352], ["2016-06-28", 0.355], ["2016-06-29", 0.355], ["2016-06-29", 0.356], ["2016-06-29", 0.356], ["2016-06-29", 0.356], ["2016-06-29", 0.353], ["2016-06-29", 0.349], ["2016-06-29", 0.346], ["2016-06-30", 0.346], ["2016-06-30", 0.347], ["2016-06-30", 0.338], ["2016-06-30", 0.338], ["2016-06-30", 0.343]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/127/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Education & Research | The so-called "abc conjecture" (or the Oesterlé–Masse conjecture) states that, given relatively prime numbers (a,b,c) such that a+b=c, and the product d of the unique prime factors of a,b, and c, then for a specified value of an index , there are only a finite number of triples (a,b,c) such that
(That is, almost all the time d is substantially greater than c -- for instance for a=5, b=7, c=12, we have d=2 x 3 x 5 x 7=210 > c. An example of the opposite (rare, finitely occuring) kind is a=3,b=125,c=128, where d=2 x 3 x 5=30. )
The abc conjecture, if true, is regarded as a revelation of deep and surprising connections between the basic arithmetical operations of addition and multiplication, and its truth would have a large number of implications for number theory.
In 2012 the mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki posted several long papers on his website in which he claimed to have found a proof of the conjecture. Mochizuki is a highly respected mathematician, but the papers (and previous results) total more than five hundred pages and the mathematics community has yet to understand Mochizuki's work, let alone verify the proof. A conference of experts in December 2015 that took place in Oxford was unable to resolve the matter, but some progress is being made, and a further conference is scheduled for July 2016.
The question will be regarded as answered in the affirmative if a formal paper (or set of papers) by Mochizuki proving the abc conjecture is accepted by a peer-reviewed mathematics journal by the end of December 2017. | true | 2016-07-01 | Will Mochizuki's proof of the "abc conjecture" be formally accepted by the mathematics community by the end of 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-02-14 | 2016-02-09 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-10", 0.54], ["2016-02-10", 0.52], ["2016-02-10", 0.547], ["2016-02-10", 0.635], ["2016-02-10", 0.588], ["2016-02-10", 0.598], ["2016-02-10", 0.599], ["2016-02-10", 0.592], ["2016-02-10", 0.583], ["2016-02-10", 0.59], ["2016-02-10", 0.585], ["2016-02-10", 0.582], ["2016-02-11", 0.578], ["2016-02-11", 0.581], ["2016-02-11", 0.573], ["2016-02-13", 0.574], ["2016-02-14", 0.564], ["2016-02-16", 0.566], ["2016-02-16", 0.573], ["2016-02-17", 0.564], ["2016-02-19", 0.563], ["2016-02-19", 0.564], ["2016-02-19", 0.57], ["2016-02-19", 0.567], ["2016-02-19", 0.576], ["2016-02-20", 0.573], ["2016-02-20", 0.572], ["2016-02-20", 0.57], ["2016-02-20", 0.557], ["2016-02-20", 0.562], ["2016-02-20", 0.573], ["2016-02-22", 0.555], ["2016-02-23", 0.556], ["2016-02-28", 0.556], ["2016-02-28", 0.561], ["2016-03-01", 0.565], ["2016-03-02", 0.577], ["2016-03-03", 0.577], ["2016-03-05", 0.573], ["2016-03-07", 0.572], ["2016-03-08", 0.57], ["2016-03-09", 0.57], ["2016-03-09", 0.568], ["2016-03-09", 0.579], ["2016-03-10", 0.58], ["2016-03-12", 0.576], ["2016-03-12", 0.576], ["2016-03-13", 0.563], ["2016-03-14", 0.565], ["2016-03-16", 0.563], ["2016-03-18", 0.563], ["2016-03-18", 0.563], ["2016-03-18", 0.563], ["2016-03-19", 0.566], ["2016-03-19", 0.571], ["2016-03-20", 0.572], ["2016-03-20", 0.573], ["2016-03-22", 0.57], ["2016-03-22", 0.568], ["2016-03-23", 0.567], ["2016-03-23", 0.561], ["2016-03-25", 0.56], ["2016-03-28", 0.56], ["2016-03-29", 0.56], ["2016-03-30", 0.567], ["2016-04-04", 0.567], ["2016-04-04", 0.57], ["2016-04-11", 0.564], ["2016-04-11", 0.567], ["2016-04-12", 0.572], ["2016-04-14", 0.572], ["2016-04-15", 0.566], ["2016-04-15", 0.566], ["2016-04-15", 0.565], ["2016-04-15", 0.566], ["2016-04-15", 0.567], ["2016-04-15", 0.566]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/129/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Brain Preservation Foundation has created a two-part prize for a team that can demonstrate high fidelity preservation of neural tissue.
The first part of this prize, the Small Mammal Brain Preservation Prize (for a rabbit brain) was won today.
The winning team (21st Century Medicine) had to demonstrate complete ultrastructural preservation of 99+% of the animals connectome, as validated by electron microscopy.
Will the Brain Preservation Foundation announce a winner of the currently outstanding Large Mammal Brain Preservation prize (a pig or larger animal) within the next 12 months? | true | 2016-04-15 | Will the Brain Preservation Foundation's Large Mammal preservation prize be won by Feb 9th, 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-04-16 | 2016-02-10 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-12", 0.5], ["2016-02-12", 0.46], ["2016-02-12", 0.47], ["2016-02-13", 0.397], ["2016-02-13", 0.312], ["2016-02-13", 0.488], ["2016-02-13", 0.486], ["2016-02-13", 0.455], ["2016-02-13", 0.476], ["2016-02-13", 0.488], ["2016-02-14", 0.482], ["2016-02-14", 0.482], ["2016-02-14", 0.506], ["2016-02-14", 0.5], ["2016-02-14", 0.508], ["2016-02-14", 0.506], ["2016-02-15", 0.509], ["2016-02-16", 0.518], ["2016-02-17", 0.488], ["2016-02-19", 0.488], ["2016-02-19", 0.487], ["2016-02-19", 0.493], ["2016-02-19", 0.503], ["2016-02-19", 0.503], ["2016-02-20", 0.503], ["2016-02-20", 0.502], ["2016-02-20", 0.515], ["2016-02-20", 0.516], ["2016-02-20", 0.513], ["2016-02-20", 0.52], ["2016-02-22", 0.537], ["2016-02-23", 0.539], ["2016-02-24", 0.539], ["2016-02-25", 0.536], ["2016-02-28", 0.527], ["2016-02-28", 0.528], ["2016-03-02", 0.512], ["2016-03-02", 0.511], ["2016-03-03", 0.512], ["2016-03-05", 0.508], ["2016-03-09", 0.509], ["2016-03-10", 0.512], ["2016-03-12", 0.514], ["2016-03-13", 0.514], ["2016-03-14", 0.512], ["2016-03-15", 0.514], ["2016-03-18", 0.514], ["2016-03-19", 0.514], ["2016-03-22", 0.517], ["2016-03-27", 0.517], ["2016-03-30", 0.526], ["2016-04-08", 0.526], ["2016-04-13", 0.524], ["2016-04-14", 0.524], ["2016-04-14", 0.523], ["2016-04-14", 0.522], ["2016-04-15", 0.522], ["2016-04-18", 0.522], ["2016-04-19", 0.523], ["2016-04-20", 0.519], ["2016-04-26", 0.519], ["2016-05-19", 0.519], ["2016-06-01", 0.519], ["2016-06-11", 0.518], ["2016-06-14", 0.512], ["2016-06-18", 0.51], ["2016-06-20", 0.513], ["2016-06-20", 0.514], ["2016-06-25", 0.515], ["2016-06-26", 0.508], ["2016-06-28", 0.507], ["2016-06-28", 0.507], ["2016-06-29", 0.507], ["2016-06-29", 0.511], ["2016-06-29", 0.512]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/130/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Qualcomm Tricorder XPRIZE is a prize for a company that can create a device specified as follows:
As envisioned for this competition, the device will be a tool capable of capturing key health metrics and diagnosing a set of 12 diseases. Metrics for health could include such elements as blood pressure, respiratory rate, and temperature. Ultimately, this tool will collect large volumes of data from ongoing measurement of health states through a combination of wireless sensors, imaging technologies, and portable, non-invasive laboratory replacements.
The devices are expected to accurately diagnose 13 health conditions (12 diseases and the absence of conditions) – 10 required core conditions and a choice of three elective conditions – in addition to capturing five real-time health vital signs, independent of a health care worker or facility, and in a way that provides a compelling consumer experience.
Will this prize be awarded by the end of 2017?
At the moment the Final Round is scheduled to occur from September 2016 through early 2017. The question resolves as true if the prize is awarded in 2017, and as false if it is not awarded in 2017, even if the deadline is extended. | true | 2016-06-30 | The Qualcomm Tricorder XPRIZE to be awarded to a team in 2017? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-09-27 | 2016-02-10 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-12", 0.22], ["2016-04-12", 0.418], ["2016-04-12", 0.478], ["2016-04-12", 0.479], ["2016-04-12", 0.476], ["2016-04-12", 0.453], ["2016-04-12", 0.444], ["2016-04-12", 0.453], ["2016-04-13", 0.438], ["2016-04-13", 0.442], ["2016-04-14", 0.419], ["2016-04-14", 0.426], ["2016-04-14", 0.424], ["2016-04-14", 0.407], ["2016-04-15", 0.395], ["2016-04-18", 0.395], ["2016-04-19", 0.392], ["2016-04-19", 0.388], ["2016-04-19", 0.397], ["2016-04-19", 0.393], ["2016-04-20", 0.387], ["2016-04-21", 0.377], ["2016-04-21", 0.375], ["2016-04-24", 0.38], ["2016-04-26", 0.379], ["2016-04-26", 0.381], ["2016-05-01", 0.374], ["2016-05-05", 0.369], ["2016-05-06", 0.363], ["2016-05-12", 0.358], ["2016-05-12", 0.352], ["2016-05-15", 0.35], ["2016-05-15", 0.342], ["2016-05-18", 0.337], ["2016-05-31", 0.335], ["2016-06-01", 0.331], ["2016-06-01", 0.332], ["2016-06-05", 0.341], ["2016-06-05", 0.33], ["2016-06-06", 0.326], ["2016-06-13", 0.317], ["2016-06-20", 0.316], ["2016-06-21", 0.308], ["2016-06-21", 0.307], ["2016-06-23", 0.305], ["2016-06-23", 0.305], ["2016-06-29", 0.3], ["2016-06-29", 0.3], ["2016-06-30", 0.3], ["2016-06-30", 0.304], ["2016-06-30", 0.3], ["2016-07-03", 0.297], ["2016-07-06", 0.293], ["2016-07-07", 0.291], ["2016-07-08", 0.289], ["2016-07-08", 0.276], ["2016-07-08", 0.273], ["2016-07-10", 0.271], ["2016-07-11", 0.266], ["2016-07-13", 0.263], ["2016-07-21", 0.262], ["2016-07-22", 0.283], ["2016-07-22", 0.272], ["2016-07-22", 0.271], ["2016-07-23", 0.266], ["2016-07-25", 0.264], ["2016-07-25", 0.262], ["2016-07-26", 0.263], ["2016-07-26", 0.256], ["2016-07-27", 0.256], ["2016-07-29", 0.258], ["2016-07-30", 0.254], ["2016-07-31", 0.255], ["2016-07-31", 0.253], ["2016-08-01", 0.248], ["2016-08-03", 0.244], ["2016-08-03", 0.24], ["2016-08-04", 0.24], ["2016-08-06", 0.236], ["2016-08-07", 0.237], ["2016-08-09", 0.236], ["2016-08-10", 0.232], ["2016-08-13", 0.23], ["2016-08-15", 0.224], ["2016-08-15", 0.23], ["2016-08-19", 0.228], ["2016-08-19", 0.227], ["2016-08-22", 0.214], ["2016-08-24", 0.211], ["2016-08-25", 0.212], ["2016-08-26", 0.207], ["2016-08-28", 0.205], ["2016-08-29", 0.204], ["2016-08-29", 0.204], ["2016-08-30", 0.204], ["2016-08-31", 0.204], ["2016-08-31", 0.203], ["2016-08-31", 0.203], ["2016-08-31", 0.202], ["2016-08-31", 0.2], ["2016-09-01", 0.198]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/131/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Medical testing and devices company Theranos has recently come into controversy after a Wall Street Journal article asserted that it has over-promised and under-delivered on its testing suite.
As summarized by The Washington Post,
Theranos, once valued at $9 billion based on its immense promise to make blood testing cheaper and more efficient, has been embroiled in questions about its technology and regulatory strategy for months. The scrutiny was sparked by a Wall Street Journal investigation that revealed that the intensely secret company's much-touted fingerprick blood tests were barely being used and employees had raised questions about the accuracy of its tests.
In response, Theranos itself claims:
Our proprietary devices are making it possible to run finger-stick samples for tests that could never be run on finger-stick before. We began using our proprietary devices in our lab at the launch of our retail operations. And we initiated filings with FDA two years ago—by choice, not necessity—because we are seeking to create a new model for laboratory testing standards, and have championed FDA oversight ever since. It is the right thing, which is also the hard thing. [...]
Capabilities of Theranos' devices: The article implies that Theranos' proprietary devices were only capable of running a limited number of tests. First, "Edison" is only one of many proprietary devices used as part of Theranos proprietary technologies. In total, Theranos research and development has developed hundreds of tests for finger-stick samples using our proprietary devices. [...]
Theranos' filings with FDA show the versatility of Theranos devices, and our confidence in the results of our tests: Theranos has publicly advocated for FDA regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), and over 120 of the tests developed for use on our devices used as part of Theranos proprietary technologies have been submitted in pre-submissions to FDA.
Will Theranos succeed in getting 100 or more tests approved by the end of 2018?
Question will be resolved per announcement by Theranos or in a major media article. | true | 2016-09-01 | Will Theranos get more than 100 FDA approvals for blood tests by the end of 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-02-11 | 2016-02-11 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-11", 0.7], ["2016-02-11", 0.615], ["2016-02-11", 0.607]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/138/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | So far, this year hasn't worked out particularly well for the stock market. The S&P 500 index is down 10% since the start of 2016, the price of oil has tanked, and the VIX volatility index has jumped by more than 50%, with recent closes consistently above 25.
In the popular financial press, the VIX Index is often referred to as the “fear gauge”, and indeed, it's behavior can be modeled as the rate of flow from a reservoir of "fear" that is replenished by an autocorrelated process.
In reality, it is a quantitative assessment of expected stock market volatility over the next thirty day period, and is computed from S&P 500 stock index option prices.
To rule-of-thumb accuracy, the numerical value of the VIX corresponds to the annualized one-sigma percentage change in the value of the S&P 500 Index over the next month. So at present, with the VIX standing at 26, the market ascribes roughly a 30% chance that stocks will have changed in price by more than 7.5%, come March 10th (a month from now).
Typically, the value of the VIX lies between 10 and 20, but it regularly spikes during times of market turmoil. During the 2008 financial crisis, for example, the VIX briefly reached values above 80.
Prior to the close of the US equities markets at 4:00 PM EDT on March 15th, 2016, will the VIX Index have an intra-day print with a value above 30? | true | 2016-02-11 | Wil the VIX index top 30 before March 15th, 2016? | metaculus | 1 |
2016-12-30 | 2016-02-12 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-18", 0.22], ["2016-08-18", 0.2], ["2016-08-18", 0.267], ["2016-08-18", 0.255], ["2016-08-19", 0.244], ["2016-08-19", 0.302], ["2016-08-19", 0.328], ["2016-08-19", 0.292], ["2016-08-19", 0.311], ["2016-08-19", 0.311], ["2016-08-19", 0.325], ["2016-08-19", 0.331], ["2016-08-19", 0.325], ["2016-08-19", 0.33], ["2016-08-19", 0.39], ["2016-08-19", 0.395], ["2016-08-20", 0.383], ["2016-08-20", 0.379], ["2016-08-22", 0.394], ["2016-08-23", 0.403], ["2016-08-24", 0.405], ["2016-08-25", 0.388], ["2016-08-28", 0.394], ["2016-08-30", 0.389], ["2016-08-30", 0.4], ["2016-08-31", 0.418], ["2016-08-31", 0.409], ["2016-08-31", 0.413], ["2016-09-01", 0.408], ["2016-09-02", 0.402], ["2016-09-02", 0.426], ["2016-09-05", 0.42], ["2016-09-07", 0.412], ["2016-09-07", 0.406], ["2016-09-13", 0.398], ["2016-09-14", 0.416], ["2016-09-14", 0.412], ["2016-09-14", 0.431], ["2016-09-15", 0.441], ["2016-09-15", 0.458], ["2016-09-16", 0.473], ["2016-09-16", 0.471], ["2016-09-16", 0.484], ["2016-09-16", 0.492], ["2016-09-16", 0.479], ["2016-09-16", 0.48], ["2016-09-16", 0.48], ["2016-09-17", 0.481], ["2016-09-18", 0.481], ["2016-09-19", 0.475], ["2016-09-19", 0.481], ["2016-09-21", 0.471], ["2016-09-21", 0.472], ["2016-09-22", 0.471], ["2016-09-22", 0.471], ["2016-09-24", 0.47], ["2016-09-26", 0.471], ["2016-09-26", 0.476], ["2016-09-27", 0.479], ["2016-09-29", 0.474], ["2016-09-30", 0.477], ["2016-09-30", 0.476], ["2016-09-30", 0.464], ["2016-09-30", 0.464], ["2016-10-01", 0.469], ["2016-10-01", 0.469], ["2016-10-01", 0.464], ["2016-10-01", 0.464], ["2016-10-01", 0.461], ["2016-10-03", 0.452], ["2016-10-16", 0.452], ["2016-10-16", 0.462], ["2016-10-20", 0.462], ["2016-10-20", 0.473], ["2016-10-20", 0.469], ["2016-10-21", 0.453], ["2016-10-21", 0.453], ["2016-10-23", 0.45], ["2016-10-23", 0.449], ["2016-10-25", 0.449], ["2016-10-25", 0.449], ["2016-10-27", 0.44]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/139/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) regulates all over-the-counter and prescription drugs released for sale to the public. CDER approves hundreds of new medications each year, most of which are variations of existing products (such as new dosages or generics). A small portion of these approvals are for “novel drugs,” products that are innovative and/or previously unavailable. These are approved either as new molecular entities under New Drug Applications or as new therapeutic biologics under Biologics License Applications.
From 2006 to 2014, CDER averaged about 28 novel drug approvals per year. In 2015, CDER hit a 19-year high with 45 approvals. The higher number is due in part to the center’s implementation of four expedited pathways to hasten the approval and release of certain medications judged to be important for the public; 27 of 2015’s 45 novel drugs were approved through this expedited process. A context of rapid progress in a range of medical technologies may also foster a “hyper-innovation age”, yielding many new kinds of therapies and potentially increasing the quantity of innovative drugs approved. As of July 27, CDER lists 16 novel drug approvals for 2016.
Will the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research make more than 45 novel drug approvals in 2016? Note: this figure does not include approvals made by the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which regulates certain categories of biologically derived drugs.
The question will resolve as positive if CDER’s list of novel drug approvals for 2016 shows 46 or more entries by January 1, 2017. | true | 2016-11-01 | Will there be more novel new drugs approved by the FDA in 2016 than in 2015? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-12-31 | 2016-02-12 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-17", 0.63], ["2016-08-17", 0.81], ["2016-08-17", 0.67], ["2016-08-17", 0.628], ["2016-08-18", 0.598], ["2016-08-18", 0.598], ["2016-08-18", 0.609], ["2016-08-18", 0.639], ["2016-08-18", 0.624], ["2016-08-19", 0.599], ["2016-08-19", 0.589], ["2016-08-19", 0.579], ["2016-08-19", 0.565], ["2016-08-20", 0.563], ["2016-08-20", 0.572], ["2016-08-23", 0.564], ["2016-08-24", 0.56], ["2016-08-27", 0.566], ["2016-08-30", 0.562], ["2016-08-31", 0.542], ["2016-08-31", 0.544], ["2016-09-01", 0.535], ["2016-09-01", 0.545], ["2016-09-03", 0.543], ["2016-09-14", 0.522], ["2016-09-14", 0.54], ["2016-09-14", 0.532], ["2016-09-15", 0.522], ["2016-09-16", 0.524], ["2016-09-16", 0.54], ["2016-09-17", 0.539], ["2016-09-19", 0.544], ["2016-09-20", 0.528], ["2016-09-21", 0.541], ["2016-09-24", 0.554], ["2016-09-26", 0.555], ["2016-09-29", 0.556], ["2016-09-29", 0.556], ["2016-09-29", 0.563], ["2016-10-03", 0.565], ["2016-10-04", 0.565], ["2016-10-19", 0.555], ["2016-10-19", 0.555], ["2016-10-19", 0.557], ["2016-10-20", 0.566], ["2016-10-21", 0.567], ["2016-10-23", 0.577], ["2016-10-23", 0.577], ["2016-10-23", 0.576], ["2016-10-24", 0.577], ["2016-11-08", 0.577], ["2016-11-14", 0.579], ["2016-11-17", 0.579], ["2016-11-23", 0.581], ["2016-11-24", 0.583], ["2016-11-29", 0.583], ["2016-12-07", 0.583], ["2016-12-21", 0.583], ["2016-12-22", 0.58], ["2016-12-31", 0.58], ["2017-01-01", 0.582], ["2017-01-02", 0.585], ["2017-01-04", 0.586], ["2017-01-10", 0.586], ["2017-01-10", 0.582], ["2017-01-10", 0.582], ["2017-01-11", 0.582], ["2017-01-27", 0.582], ["2017-01-28", 0.577], ["2017-01-31", 0.579], ["2017-02-14", 0.578], ["2017-02-21", 0.581], ["2017-02-21", 0.581], ["2017-02-23", 0.581], ["2017-02-24", 0.581], ["2017-02-24", 0.583], ["2017-02-26", 0.583], ["2017-03-01", 0.581], ["2017-03-03", 0.581], ["2017-03-10", 0.58], ["2017-03-11", 0.58], ["2017-03-12", 0.582], ["2017-03-15", 0.583], ["2017-03-15", 0.583]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/140/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | Along with ride-sharing services Lyft and Uber, AirBnB is a vanguard company in the "sharing economy" in which people make money sharing their property with complete strangers. It's a fairly new business model that hasn't yet achieved profitability or cleared all of its regulatory hurdles.
The concept is simple - people looking to spend the night in a certain city, but who don't want to shell out for a hotel, can rent spare rooms and spare spaces in people's houses. AirBnB provides the platform for renters and owners to connect, and collects a percentage of the transactions as its revenue. Pluses: The company doesn't have to spend a dime on building hotel properties or hiring hospitality staff. It's just a marketplace, where renters and owners do most of the work.
Minuses: The company is getting blowback from the governments of both San Francisco and New York City, both of whom are cracking down on non-hotel rentals less than 30 days in duration.
Since 2014, rumors have been circulating that AirBnB was preparing for an initial public offering, or IPO, that would make it a publicly-owned company, with stock available on a major stock exchange. As recently as June 2016 the rumors were ramping up again, based on financial rumblings that the company could initiate an IPO to raise cash for expansion. AirBnB turned again to private investors, however, raising around $850 million and valuing the company at $30 billion dollars. After such a large cash infusion, it may be a while before AirBnB need to raise more money from the public.
A successful IPO may be all in the timing, however. New York's and San Francisco's objections to the room-sharing economy could stall growth in those major markets and decrease eventual demand for stock.
Will AirBnB go public before 2019?
To resolve as positive, AirBnB must file the requisite documents for an initial public offering with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or before December 31, 2018. | true | 2017-03-15 | Will AirBnB will go public before 2019? | metaculus | 0 |
Dataset from "Approaching Human-Level Forecasting with Language Models"
This document details the curated dataset developed for our research paper, Approaching Human-Level Forecasting with Language Models, authored by Danny Halawi, Fred Zhang, Chen Yueh-Han, and Jacob Steinhardt.
Data Source and Format
The dataset is compiled from forecasting platforms including Metaculus, Good Judgment Open, INFER, Polymarket, and Manifold. These platforms enable users to predict future events by assigning probabilities to different outcomes, structured as follows:
- Background Description: Contextual information for each forecasting question.
- Resolution Criterion: Guidelines on how and when each question is considered resolved.
- Timestamps: Key dates including the publication (begin date), forecast submission deadline (close date), and outcome resolution (resolve date).
Submissions are accepted between the begin date and the earlier of the resolve or close dates. See Table 1 in our paper for an in-depth example.
Raw Data Composition
The raw dataset encompasses 48,754 questions and 7,174,607 user forecasts from 2015 to 2024, across various question types and topics globally. However, it includes challenges such as ill-defined questions and a significant imbalance in source platform contributions post-June 1, 2023. For a complete view of the raw data, visit our dataset on Hugging Face.
Data Curation Process
To refine the dataset for analytical rigor, we undertook the following steps:
- Filtering: Exclusion of ill-defined, overly personal, or niche-interest questions to ensure data quality and relevance.
- Adjustment for Imbalance: Careful selection to mitigate the recent source imbalance, focusing on a diverse representation of forecasting questions.
- Binary Focus: Conversion of multiple-choice questions to binary format, concentrating on binary outcomes for a streamlined analysis.
- Temporal Segregation: To prevent leakage from language models' pre-training, the test set includes only questions published after June 1, 2024, with earlier questions allocated to training and validation sets.
This curation resulted in 5,516 binary questions, with 3,762 for training, 840 for validation, and 914 for testing. Detailed examples and curation insights are provided in Table 2a and Appendix C of our paper.
Significance for Research
The curated dataset is pivotal for our investigation into language models' forecasting capabilities, aiming to benchmark against or exceed human predictive performance. It enables focused analysis on high-quality, relevant forecasting questions.
Detailed methodologies and insights from our study are available in the linked paper at the beginning of this document. We invite feedback and collaboration to further this field of research.
How to Cite
If you find our dataset and research useful for your work, please cite it using the following BibTeX entry:
@misc{halawi2024approaching,
title={Approaching Human-Level Forecasting with Language Models},
author={Danny Halawi and Fred Zhang and Chen Yueh-Han and Jacob Steinhardt},
year={2024},
eprint={2402.18563},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.LG}
}
- Downloads last month
- 114