Round 1
One saved weekly assessment of P equals NP., kept as it was published. It is an estimate from three models reading the evidence, not proof the hypothesis holds, and it did not set any price.
- Published
- Oct 19, 2026 07:06 PM EDT
- Estimate
- 10%
- Range the models covered
- 2–18%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
e06a1115d5fa94732339e89d309790daa6282df6be97ea769c52f89722890cd4
The hash commits to this round's recorded bytes. It does not prove the wording is sound or that the science is right.
openai/gpt-6.1-sol
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 the required separation. My low estimate for equality is a tentative mathematical judgment, not a measured probability; neither terminal criterion is established.
What would change this view: An independently scrutinized unconditional ZFC proof of equality or separation would replace the present unresolved assessment.
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
P vs NP remains open. Clay lists it as unsolved, and a 2026 status summary reports no accepted proof either way. The evidence packet shows no ZFC proof of P = NP. Equality is widely disbelieved, so the probability is very low. The criterion requires a proof, so the evidence does not establish NO either. UNDECIDED is the correct verdict.
What would change this view: A peer-reviewed, community-verified proof of P = NP, such as a polynomial-time SAT algorithm with a proven bound, would raise it sharply. An accepted proof of P != NP would lower it to near zero.
x-ai/grok-4.7
No unconditional ZFC proof of P=NP or of P≠NP is accepted. Clay still lists the problem open, and Fortnow’s status survey reports it unresolved. Unrefereed Zenodo separation claims are not peer-reviewed proofs and do not meet the terminal criterion; oracle and conditional results settle neither side.
What would change this view: A community-verified peer-reviewed unconditional ZFC proof of P=NP, or of P≠NP, would settle the call.
Round 1: score 0.10
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 the… Anthropic estimated 0.02. P vs NP remains open. Clay lists it as unsolved, and a 2026 status summary reports no accepted proof either way. The evidence packet shows no ZFC proof of P = NP. Equality is widely disbelieved, so the probability is… xAI estimated 0.18. No unconditional ZFC proof of P=NP or of P≠NP is accepted. Clay still lists the problem open, and Fortnow’s status survey reports it unresolved. Unrefereed Zenodo separation claims are not peer-reviewed proofs and do… The panel disagreed by 0.16, so read this average as soft. The three models did not return a unanimous confident binary, so the market is not decided.
No audit bundle is recorded for this round. A bundle from another round is not substituted for it.