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.
Last reading Nov 14, 2026 07:41 PM EST. The single AI dot opens that round's saved record. 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. How the AI estimate is made.How to read this chart
Buy YES or NO
You buy YES or NO with USDC, in your own wallet, through Jupiter. This site never holds your money.
- Pool depth
- $32
Token address
HsXD6mMuFmHnfucRYuruFkviLDZKAkdUMfT9heg3q7E5
- Pool depth
- $468
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
What moved the number
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,…
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 →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 →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 →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.
Required positive observation
SupportingAn 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 recordedRequired contrary observation
ContraryAn 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 recordedEligibility and unresolved outcomes
MethodEvidence 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 recordedPast estimates
Every weekly estimate, newest first
| Date | Estimate | Range |
|---|---|---|
| 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 threadNo 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.