Round 1
One saved weekly assessment of The Riemann hypothesis is true., 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 07:07 PM EDT
- Estimate
- 60%
- Range the models covered
- 2–90%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
8986eea8af311fdcd1b7eb7ffa9a5a10bb7aad43f195a9aed673ba24c36187ce
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
I interpret the hypothesis as the universal mathematical statement, not merely its finite verification. Rigorous interval-arithmetic checks support it over a large bounded range, but Clay still lists it as unsolved; the checked evidence supplies neither an independently verified unconditional proof nor a certified counterexample. The probability reflects support for its truth, not satisfaction of the resolution criterion.
What would change this view: An independently checked unconditional ZFC proof would establish YES; a rigorously certified off-line zero would establish NO.
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
I found no accepted proof or disproof of the Riemann hypothesis. Clay still lists it as unsolved. The recent AI-assisted result only raises the proven fraction of zeros on the critical line to about 67%, which is not a proof of RH. Neither criterion is met, and the evidence doesn't establish the contrary either, so the verdict is UNDECIDED.
What would change this view: A peer-reviewed, independently verified (for example formalized in Lean) complete proof would move me to YES; a certified zero off the critical line would move me to NO.
x-ai/grok-4.7
Clay still lists the classical Riemann hypothesis as an open Millennium Problem. The first 10^13 zeros lie on Re(s)=1/2, but finite checks do not meet the YES criterion, and no independently checked unconditional ZFC proof or certified off-line counterexample is public. Preprint proof claims are not peer-reviewed resolutions.
What would change this view: A gap-free, independently checked ZFC proof, or a certified zero with real part not 1/2, would settle it.
Round 1: score 0.60
OpenAI estimated 0.90. I interpret the hypothesis as the universal mathematical statement, not merely its finite verification. Rigorous interval-arithmetic checks support it over a large bounded range, but Clay still lists it as unsolved; the… Anthropic estimated 0.02. I found no accepted proof or disproof of the Riemann hypothesis. Clay still lists it as unsolved. The recent AI-assisted result only raises the proven fraction of zeros on the critical line to about 67%, which is not a… xAI estimated 0.88. Clay still lists the classical Riemann hypothesis as an open Millennium Problem. The first 10^13 zeros lie on Re(s)=1/2, but finite checks do not meet the YES criterion, and no independently checked unconditional ZFC… The panel disagreed by 0.88, 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.