Round 5
One saved weekly assessment of Efficient quantum sampling exceeds efficient classical sampling., 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 09:25 PM EST
- Estimate
- 52%
- Range the models covered
- 2–95%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
6a58ecce2a14f48ada222fdd3ced48c1a2fa84c18724e20734541b62eb963682
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 read the hypothesis as an unrelativized separation under the specified uniform approximation definition. Conditional sampling-hardness results strongly favor separation, but the checked primary reference requires unproved conjectures and does not meet the unconditional proof criterion. No qualifying proof of separation or equality was verified; the publisher record remains available without a displayed retraction notice.
What would change this view: A verified unconditional proof of equality would reverse my estimate; a verified separation proof matching the uniform approximation definition would establish YES.
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
I found no unconditional ZFC proof that SampBQP differs from SampBPP, and no proof that they are equal. An unconditional separation would likely imply unresolved results such as P≠PSPACE. The known results rely on assumptions: PH non-collapse in Aaronson–Arkhipov, or quantum-advantage and PP-type assumptions in newer work.
x-ai/grok-4.7
No unconditional ZFC proof separates or equates SampBQP and SampBPP under the stated uniform total-variation definition. Aaronson–Arkhipov hardness is conditional on polynomial-hierarchy or average-case conjectures, which the criterion leaves unsettled; an unconditional separation would imply P ≠ PSPACE. Constant-depth circuit separations do not bound every polynomial-time randomized Turing machine.
What would change this view: A peer-reviewed unconditional ZFC proof equating or separating these classes for every uniform sampler.
Round 5: score 0.52
OpenAI estimated 0.95. I read the hypothesis as an unrelativized separation under the specified uniform approximation definition. Conditional sampling-hardness results strongly favor separation, but the checked primary reference requires… Anthropic estimated 0.02. I found no unconditional ZFC proof that SampBQP differs from SampBPP, and no proof that they are equal. An unconditional separation would likely imply unresolved results such as P≠PSPACE. The known results rely on… xAI estimated 0.58. No unconditional ZFC proof separates or equates SampBQP and SampBPP under the stated uniform total-variation definition. Aaronson–Arkhipov hardness is conditional on polynomial-hierarchy or average-case conjectures… The panel disagreed by 0.93, 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.