Round 5
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
- Nov 09, 2026 06:40 PM EST
- Estimate
- 9%
- Range the models covered
- 1–15%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
2c81bf47217520a33ca32c11adaede35cc35504f04e84995d154ffd692f9d1e6
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
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 frequency or established separation. Oracle results demonstrate limitations of proof techniques and cannot satisfy either resolution criterion.
What 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/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 found no unconditional ZFC proof of P = NP or of P != NP, so the hypothesis is not established. This is a NO on the P = NP claim in the sense of 'not established', not a proof of the contrary.
What 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.
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 establish either side.
What 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.
Round 5: score 0.09
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, not… Anthropic estimated 0.01. 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… xAI estimated 0.15. 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… 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.