delivering intelligent contingencies delivering accurate estimations modeling accurate understanding calculating probable insights modeling critical estimations mapping the future generating accurate contingencies predicting critical forecasts forecasting critical estimations mapping contingent understanding crowdsourcing probable predictions delivering accurate understanding crowdsourcing probable insights modeling quantitative predictions


Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Will a consensus explanation of the strange behavior of the star KIC 8462852 emerge this year?

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.


Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.