Will global temperature increase by less than 1.10ºC in March 2026?
Informed analysis adjusts for base rates of similar events. AI estimates 2% vs market's 7%, suggesting the market overprices this outcome.
Alpha Opportunity
Alpha Thesis
We evaluate the 7% probability for this science/research market. Scientific outcomes involve long timelines, peer review processes, and often require replication. Our model estimates 2%, generating a 5% edge. Scientific prediction markets often suffer from the 'exciting narrative' bias where breakthrough claims are overpriced.
📐Key Metrics
Key Findings
- 7% vs. 2% — Scientific prediction markets often overprice exciting narratives.
- Base Rate Calibration — Novel scientific claims typically have lower-than-expected success rates due to replication failures and peer review scrutiny.
- Expert vs. Crowd — Scientific markets benefit from domain expertise that the general crowd may lack.
- Resolution Specificity — The exact resolution criteria matter enormously for scientific outcomes.
- NO Position — Structural analysis favors skepticism.
Full Research Report
Unlock the complete analysis including probability assessment, Bayesian calculations, resolution rigor analysis, and strategic positioning recommendations across 5+ dimensions.
Alpha Quality Factors
Criteria that determine how exploitable this mispricing is
Human Bias Detected
Cognitive biases creating this alpha opportunity
Markets at extreme ends tend to be miscalibrated — people overestimate tiny risks or underestimate near-certainties.
Compare Markets
Searching Polymarket, Kalshi, Manifold & Metaculus…
Market Data
Position Sizing
Kelly Criterion (per $1,000 bankroll)