I'm trying to get an estimate of the chances of this paper being correct without actually waiting 100 years for the star to go nova or not.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.00287.pdf

Any of the following would potentially be reasons to resolve YES, in descending order of convincingness:

Betelgeuse actually goes nova before the question is resolved, or shows other independent signs of nova being imminent.

New space assets are put up to study an imminent nova.

Other papers are published supporting essentially the same result by other methods or evidence.

Relevant astronomical organizations endorse the conclusion.

The general consensus develops that the paper is probably correct.

(* I don't actually know if all of these are plausible things that would happen. I'm just trying to list examples)

The last one is obviously the squishiest and I am not myself an astronomer, so I will likely rely on sources such as Wikipedia, prominent scientific YouTubers or Twitter accounts (eg Dr Becky or Scott Manley), etc to form my impression of any such consensus though I am not averse to reading the literature if it's readable to a layman and someone points me to it.

Any of the following would potentially be reasons to resolve NO:

The paper is retracted, or never accepted for publication.

The paper is contradicted by other reputable papers.

The general consensus develops that the paper is probably wrong.

If the evidence seems ambiguous I reserve the right to resolve to Market if it seems basically reasonable and not an artifact of market manipulation or illiquidity. Otherwise I will do my best to resolve as above.

(I will lastly note that I might change the market title a little if I think of something better though obviously I don't intend to thereby change the market criteria itself in any substantial way)