I will run an Arxiv search for papers published this mothin which mention "LK-99" or "LK99". If there are ever ten or more results for this term in September, 2023, then this market resolves YES
Right now there are no results.
Past results:
Results on arxiv advanced search for "LK-99" or "LK99"
From 2023-07-01 to 2023-08-01: 1 (the original paper)
From 2023-08-01 to 2023-09-01: 49
From 2023-09-01 to 2023-10-01: So far, zero as of 9/3
Exact search I am running:
If reasonable improvements to my search are revealed, we may have to NA this market, since the historical examples etc. may have been invalidated. Please comment if you think I am missing papers in how I am conducting this search.
I am aware I am possibly double-counting the last day of the month, although in this case it doesn't matter.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ88 | |
| 2 | Ṁ87 | |
| 3 | Ṁ52 | |
| 4 | Ṁ26 | |
| 5 | Ṁ18 |
People are also trading
@MarcusAbramovitch Two of those are updates of August papers, so the actual count for this market is 2.
An interesting theory paper was posted on 2023-09-13, but to SSRN instead of arXiv. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570810
@EvanDaniel This is an update (only v3 is September) and not a new paper, and @StrayClimb clarified only new papers count. So still zero.
I am a bit unhappy about search because for example I think https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01755 from Sichuan Normal University should count "in spirit". It doesn't mention LK-99 in abstract but does in conclusion.
In summary, our theoretical investigation has unveiled the presence of flat bands and novel topological semimetal states in the LK-99 derivative.
But "LK-99 in abstract" is in fact unambiguous and people probably should bet taking false negatives into account.
@SanghyeonSeo Yes. it's hard to open the door to including this kind of paper - the border line can get arbitrarily fuzzy. I think the majority of "LK-99 is real" cases are still accompanied by a spike of papers mentioning the exact terms. It would be truly rare for "LK-99 YES" AND "Most new papers don't mention it"
@StrayClimb I assume updates to existing papers will count as long as the update is in September right?
@JoaoPedroSantos Hmm, what does everyone think? My initial view would be to only accept new papers. If the same lab has truly new data, wouldn't they typically produce a new paper rather than update an older one?