RERUN
Claim 3

Demo claim: practice run, not real research.

Analysis that depends on an unpublished private package

A demo, not real research. The code imports a package the authors never released, so no environment repair can make it run. The Lab can't install it, so this comes out inconclusive.

We test one thing: does this code and data give this number? That's not the same as the science being right. The forecast price never changes the verdict.

See the proof
0.9The paper reports this as its accuracy. Counts if between 0.89 and 0.91.
RERUNCLAIM #0003

Analysis that depends on an unpublished private package

Paper says
0.9
Counts if
0.89 to 0.91
Lab got
no number
VerdictDoesn't hold up
095cd48cf1aac81d27e9Nov 04, 2026

This result is final

The code ran past its time limit.

This slip is the Lab's .

✓ Verified on NEAR. See the contract's history

See the full receipt

  1. People forecast
  2. Forecasting ends
  3. The Lab retraces it
  4. Verdict posted, open to challenge
  5. Winners collect

What we didn't check

  • Whether the sample was fair or large enough.
  • Whether test data leaked into training or tuning.
  • Whether the result holds on new data.
  • Whether the study's method was the right one for its question.

Reading how the odds moved…

The evidence

See the full receipt

How much evidence is behind this?

Each step is a tougher test. Only the first one decides who wins the market.

  1. 1. !

    The Lab's retrace of the code and data named in the claim

    The code ran past its time limit. NO wins.

  2. 2. –

    Stress test: does the number depend on luck?

    Fetching the extra runs…

  3. 3. –

    Rebuilt from the description (experimental)

    Fetching the AI's rebuild…

Coming next: a data-leakage check, for the same rows in training and test data, and a maths check on the statistics a paper reports. Neither has run on this claim.

Even all three steps can't prove the science is true. They show how well this result stands up to checking.

Verified

Your browser just re-checked these itself, so you don't have to trust this site.

Checking…

What the Lab retraces

Source
A demo, not real research
RERUN demo fixture, MIT
Code, at this exact version
https://rerun.invalid/demo/broken.git
commit 4657282b6cdd46e0645cf2c6f9febea99f66fed3
Commands
python3.11
$ pip install -r requirements.txt
$ python reproduce.py
Where the result is read
results.json using jsonpath $.accuracy
Data files
data/trials.csv
fingerprint be35dcd48bdcc0222a5c4d5ef769adb4a58e77c1914af80d8aa457ad742f9b7d
Limits
2 CPU, 2 GB, 3 minutes
095cd48cf1aac81d27e9ac8df19b66e4fbfc698a7c58c110e4f6d8a33edef6a8
Show the claim exactly as stored on the blockchain
{"artifact":{"commit":"4657282b6cdd46e0645cf2c6f9febea99f66fed3","data":[{"path":"data/trials.csv","sha256":"be35dcd48bdcc0222a5c4d5ef769adb4a58e77c1914af80d8aa457ad742f9b7d","url":"https://rerun.invalid/demo/data/trials.csv"}],"entrypoint":"python reproduce.py","output":{"extractor":{"expr":"$.accuracy","type":"jsonpath"},"path":"results.json"},"repo_url":"https://rerun.invalid/demo/broken.git","runtime":"python3.11","setup":["pip install -r requirements.txt"]},"metric":{"comparison":"within_tolerance","name":"accuracy","reported_value":"0.9","tolerance":{"type":"abs","value":"0.01"}},"private_data":null,"resources":{"cpu":2,"max_minutes":3,"mem_gb":2},"source":{"authors":"RERUN demo fixture","license":"MIT","type":"report","url":"https://rerun.invalid/demo/broken"},"statement":"DEMO FIXTURE, not real research. The code imports a package the authors never released, so no environment repair can make it run. That is a real finding: the result did not reproduce because the code is broken.","title":"[DEMO] Analysis that depends on an unpublished private package","version":1}

Community notes

Notes are people's own words, kept on the blockchain. They never change a verdict, and the Lab's AI never reads them. Posting costs a little NEAR for storage, and what isn't used comes back.