Science Markets
Markets / Computer science / Complexity theory

P equals NP.

If a computer can check a solution quickly, can it also find one quickly? YES means P = NP; NO means P ≠ NP. Either outcome requires a proof.

Live

Price history

Last reading Nov 14, 2026 07:41 PM EST. The single AI dot opens that round's saved record.

How to read this chart

Each dot is one recorded reading, thinned to hourly for readability; the underlying samples are every few minutes. The line between two dots is not a measurement. A round published before the first recorded price stays off the chart, because there was no market to read; you can still open it from the round list. How the AI estimate is made.

Buy YES or NO

You buy YES or NO with USDC, in your own wallet, through Jupiter. This site never holds your money.

YES 6¢current price
Pool depth
$32
Buy YES  6¢
Token address
HsXD6mMuFmHnfucRYuruFkviLDZKAkdUMfT9heg3q7E5
NO 94¢current price
Pool depth
$468
Buy NO  94¢
Token address
GYVf34GeeKyd2KL5Wrmy4ptCrYrQL1GeDT5ch9R87Jyv

Verify the market on-chain ↗ · Reading is open to everyone. Trading is subject to the terms and the access rules.

Weekly AI estimate

9% This week · Nov 09, 2026 06:40 PM EST

The average of three models reading the same evidence. It is an estimate, not proof the hypothesis holds, and it does not set the pool price.

Range
1–15%
Verdict
Undecided

The panel's confident binary this round Undecided the models did not all agree

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
OpenAI 10% Anthropic 1% xAI 15% Average 9%
Market definition · YES, NO and evidence rules

This is the frozen contract wording. Read the YES and NO tests, the evidence requirements and the undecided cases before taking a position.

Canonical title

P equals NP.

Exact hypothesis · technical wording

The uniform complexity classes P and NP over finite binary strings are equal, using deterministic polynomial-time Turing machines and polynomial-time Karp reductions. Runtime is worst-case in input length, not average-case or restricted to physically encountered instances.

Each round reads the evidence that was public at a stated cutoff. Later evidence goes into a later round; the market itself has no expiry date.

How the evidence cutoff is fixed

A round only counts evidence published before its own cutoff time, and the round's number is that timestamp. So a round cannot borrow a later cutoff, and an earlier round's judgment cannot be reused for a later one. The hypothesis wording, the resolution criteria and the methodology identifier were hashed into the market account at creation, which is what stops any of them being edited afterwards.

Resolution criteria

YES: An unconditional ZFC proof of P = NP, for example a correct polynomial-time algorithm for Boolean satisfiability with a proven worst-case bound. NO: An unconditional ZFC proof of P != NP. Oracle separations, heuristic success, conditional hardness and failure to find an algorithm settle neither side. Independence from ZFC leaves this market UNDECIDED. Reference sources: Clay: P versus NP (https://www.claymath.org/millennium/p-vs-np/). Evidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.

The definition does not change when an AI estimate changes. Read the listing policy and this market's settlement status.

Frozen by hash on Solana

The hashes below were written into the market account when it was created, before any token was issued. Each one is SHA-256 over the exact text named in its label, shown on this page: the hypothesis paragraph under Exact hypothesis, the paragraph under Resolution criteria, and the identifier in the table below. The program cannot change them afterwards, and this site cannot rewrite them to match an edit.

SHA-256 of claim — the hypothesis paragraph
15aa51f9ebedaf5af5093c8c13481a23b1fbaecec372a506e1228e9a30c70bef
SHA-256 of resolution_criteria — the criteria paragraph
ec7dc3aa0e63b827860857648d7895557570923920dd9231e69f8983e9326a1b
SHA-256 of methodology — the identifier science-2026-10-15-audit2
e7bf44caa2fed4e799d8e8a8cc7ec49cfc95af1bf7ae5b24ed2a4e875de0c91b
Context commitment
438811530e327198bfc06fc0e76c49b6f12f7eb01cce375e0a26231c2b3a7dab
Market account
BkN3Q4ifgZbRmnnwWjZWX8HTR8shgwPjmuWjBMv5FUx8

These are the token mints the contract issued for this market. A swap takes one of them as the token to buy.

YES token mint
HsXD6mMuFmHnfucRYuruFkviLDZKAkdUMfT9heg3q7E5
NO token mint
GYVf34GeeKyd2KL5Wrmy4ptCrYrQL1GeDT5ch9R87Jyv

Read those hashes off the market account on Solana Explorer — an explorer link is not a verified-build badge.

A hash commits to bytes, not to meaning. It proves the wording was not swapped or edited after issuance. It does not prove the wording is complete, the evidence is sound, or that the deployed program cannot be upgraded.

How each model argued

Three models read the same evidence and did not fully agree. Their average is 0.09.

This round ran under methodology panel-v9. Short excerpts are below; the round 5 page keeps the full answers, sources and raw responses. The current methodology and example requests do not reconstruct this historical round's exact request.

OpenAI UNDECIDED 0.10

openai/gpt-6.1-sol

The checked sources provide neither an unconditional ZFC proof of equality nor one of inequality; Clay continues to describe the problem as open. My low probability for equality is a tentative mathematical judgment, not a measured…

Would change this view: An independently scrutinized unconditional ZFC proof of a worst-case polynomial-time SAT algorithm would sharply raise my estimate and support YES.

Full explanation from OpenAI→
Anthropic NO 0.01

anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5

P vs NP is still open. Clay lists no solution, and a 2026 status page says no accepted proof exists either way. The recent claimed refutation of ETH is a subexponential 3-SAT algorithm, which does not give a polynomial-time algorithm. I…

Would change this view: A peer-reviewed, independently verified polynomial-time SAT algorithm with a proven worst-case bound would move this toward YES. A verified ZFC proof of P != NP would settle it as NO.

Full explanation from Anthropic→
xAI UNDECIDED 0.15

x-ai/grok-4.7

No accepted unconditional ZFC proof of P=NP or of P≠NP is in hand. Clay still lists the problem as open, and recent separation claims are either incomplete or unverified preprints. Absent a proof, failure to find a SAT algorithm does not…

Would change this view: A community-accepted ZFC proof of worst-case polynomial SAT, or of P≠NP, would move this to YES or NO.

Full explanation from xAI→

What moved the number

—
Oct 16

This is a new contract, not a migrated position or a continuation of old forecast history. The initial 0.50 is an initialization convention, not an AI forecast or an assessed scientific probability. Reference links are background sources,…

Nov 9
0.10 0.09 −1.3

OpenAI estimated 0.10. The checked sources provide neither an unconditional ZFC proof of equality nor one of inequality; Clay continues to describe the problem as open. My low probability for equality is a tentative mathematical judgment,…

This round's saved score, answers and sources →
Nov 9
0.10 0.10 0.0 no model output

Live panel did not return all three estimates (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI failed or gave an unusable answer). A round is only live when all three are valid, so this round is a placeholder at the previous score rather than an average of two.

This round's saved score, answers and sources →
Oct 19

OpenAI estimated 0.10. Clay currently lists P versus NP as unsolved, and the checked evidence supplies no unconditional ZFC proof in either direction. Cook’s description distinguishes restricted lower bounds and conditional barriers from…

This round's saved score, answers and sources →
—
Oct 19
The evidence packet · 4 entries

What the panel was shown when this round ran. A row with no source link is a description only, and the panel is told so.

Clay: P versus NP

Context

Official problem description; no claim of a current solution.

Source link

Required positive observation

Supporting

An unconditional ZFC proof of P = NP, for example a correct polynomial-time algorithm for Boolean satisfiability with a proven worst-case bound.

Description only · no source link recorded

Required contrary observation

Contrary

An unconditional ZFC proof of P != NP. Oracle separations, heuristic success, conditional hardness and failure to find an algorithm settle neither side. Independence from ZFC leaves this market UNDECIDED.

Description only · no source link recorded

Eligibility and unresolved outcomes

Method

Evidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.

Description only · no source link recorded

Past estimates

Every weekly estimate, newest first
DateEstimateRange
Nov 09, 2026 06:40 PM EST 9% 1–15%
Nov 09, 2026 09:30 AM EST 10% no live reading
Nov 02, 2026 09:30 AM EST 10% no live reading
Oct 26, 2026 10:30 AM EDT 10% no live reading
Oct 19, 2026 07:06 PM EDT 10% 2–18%

Discussion

Start a thread

No threads yet. Argue about the evidence, the panel, or whether the hypothesis is worded fairly.

Anyone can join the discussion. Sign in with a wallet to keep your threads together.