Round 5
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
- Nov 10, 2026 09:23 PM EST
- Estimate
- 60%
- Range the models covered
- 3–90%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
3ac6d4780ca7861c6626ed23d21778baec9ab4154b22dce4a459b37ed39f1bee
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
Rigorous finite verification supports the classical hypothesis, but cannot exclude an off-line zero at greater height. Clay still lists the problem as unresolved, and the checked sources provide neither an independently verified unconditional proof nor a certified counterexample. The numerical estimate reflects plausibility, not satisfaction of either resolution criterion.
What would change this view: An independently checked unconditional ZFC proof would establish YES; an exactly certified off-line zero would establish NO.
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
No accepted, independently checked proof or counterexample of the Riemann hypothesis exists. MathWorld, citing Clay (Sep 2026), lists it as unsolved. Numerical checks and heuristics favor truth, but they don't meet the YES criterion. The evidence also doesn't establish the negation, so no definite verdict is warranted.
What would change this view: A peer-reviewed, community-verified proof (for example, Clay acceptance or formal verification) would move this to YES; a verified off-line zero would move it to NO.
x-ai/grok-4.7
The classical Riemann hypothesis remains an open Clay problem: no complete unconditional ZFC proof has been independently checked, and no certified zero with real part other than 1/2 is known. Verification of the first 10 trillion zeros and a 2026 survey finding no good reason to doubt RH support the statement but do not meet the proof or counterexample criterion.
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 5: score 0.60
OpenAI estimated 0.90. Rigorous finite verification supports the classical hypothesis, but cannot exclude an off-line zero at greater height. Clay still lists the problem as unresolved, and the checked sources provide neither an independently… Anthropic estimated 0.03. No accepted, independently checked proof or counterexample of the Riemann hypothesis exists. MathWorld, citing Clay (Sep 2026), lists it as unsolved. Numerical checks and heuristics favor truth, but they don't meet the… xAI estimated 0.86. The classical Riemann hypothesis remains an open Clay problem: no complete unconditional ZFC proof has been independently checked, and no certified zero with real part other than 1/2 is known. Verification of the first… The panel disagreed by 0.87, 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.