whataifound.org Updated 2026-07-27

What AI has
actually discovered

A curated registry of real discoveries in mathematics, physics, biology, and computer science produced by or with AI systems (Anthropic, OpenAI, Deepmind, and others). We grade every entry on how it was verified and how much the AI actually did, so you can tell a machine-checked proof from a press release.

27Entries on record
18Well verified
9AI-led or autonomous
4Negative or contested
Independent
2026-07-22
Author verified AI-led
Model
GPT-5.6 Pro
Field
computer-science
Posed
1999 · open 27 yrs
Notability
1 Wikipedia edition

Counterexample to the Dinitz–Garg–Goemans conjecture

An explicit seven-node network whose cheapest single-route (unsplittable) shipping costs more than its fractional cost even under the allowed capacity slack, disproving a conjecture from the late 1990s.

Dinitz, Garg, and Goemans proved that any fractional multicommodity flow can be rounded to an unsplittable (single-path-per-demand) flow while violating each arc's capacity by at most the maximum demand. Goemans conjectured this rounding could also be done without increasing the total cost. The counterexample is a directed graph on seven nodes carrying three demands (15, 10, 15); its fractional solution costs 58, yet every unsplittable routing that stays within the allowed capacity cushion (violation ≤ 15) costs at least 60. Rybin reached it with GPT-5.6 Pro in four short prompts and reported that the model returned proof certificates, an exhaustive-enumeration verification program, machine-readable data, and LaTeX source.

WithDmitry Rybin

combinatorial-optimizationnetwork-flowcounterexampleunsplittable-flow
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

The Dinitz–Garg–Goemans unsplittable-flow result is from the late 1990s (D. Dinitz, N. Garg, M. Goemans, 'On the single-source unsplittable flow problem'); the cost-preserving strengthening was an open conjecture attributed to Goemans. No prior counterexample or resolution appears in the literature. The construction is a new concrete instance, not a retrieval of an existing example.

Caveats

Not peer-reviewed or machine-checked in a proof assistant. Verification rests on the author's own exhaustive-enumeration program over a finite instance, which anyone can rerun but which had no logged independent replication at announcement. The result was shared informally on X with a public GPT-5.6 Pro transcript. One third party (Hensen Juang) publicly generalized the instance into an infinite parametric family on the same seven nodes, which is consistent with the claim but is not a formal independent check. Autonomy graded ai-led: the model produced the construction; the human posed the problem and verified.

Independent
2026-07-20
Author verified AI-led
Model
GPT-5.6 Sol Pro + Claude Fable 5
Field
mathematics
Posed
2017 · open 9 yrs

Counterexamples to the Gaussian moments conjecture

Explicit low-degree polynomials disproving a 2017 conjecture that had been proposed as a route to proving the Jacobian conjecture, found days after that conjecture was itself disproved.

Derksen, van den Essen and Zhao proposed the Gaussian moments conjecture and showed that the Jacobian conjecture would follow from it. Long reports that a cubic counterexample in four variables was produced by GPT-5.6 Sol Pro with no human intervention after the initial prompt, which simply noted that the Jacobian conjecture had just been disproved and asked whether a small counterexample to GMC might therefore exist; Claude Fable 5 then found a quartic counterexample in three variables and supplied independent algebraic checks. Together these show GMC(n) is false for every n ≥ 3.

WithChristopher D. Long

algebrapolynomial-mapscounterexamplejacobian-conjecture
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

The Gaussian moments conjecture is due to Derksen, van den Essen and Zhao (Israel J. Math., 2017), building on their earlier moment-vanishing and integral conjectures. No prior counterexample appears in the literature; the conjecture's interest was precisely that it implied the Jacobian conjecture, which was disproved on 2026-07-19. The two-variable case GMC(2) is explicitly left open by this paper.

Caveats

arXiv preprint, not peer-reviewed, single author. The constructions are explicit polynomials and checkable by computer algebra, which lowers the cost of verification, but no independent check is on the public record yet. The result is a corollary of the Jacobian collapse rather than an independent line of attack: the prompt that produced it began by telling the model that the Jacobian conjecture had fallen.

Anthropic
2026-07-19
Formally verified Collaborative
Model
Claude Fable 5
Field
mathematics
Posed
1939 · open 87 yrs
Notability
15 Wikipedia editions

Counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture in dimension three

An explicit polynomial map in three variables with constant Jacobian determinant −2 that is nevertheless not invertible, disproving a conjecture open since 1939.

The map F(x,y,z) = (u³z + y²u(4+3xy), y + 3xu²z + 3xy²(4+3xy), 2x − 3x²y − x³z) with u = 1+xy has Jacobian determinant identically −2, yet sends the three distinct points (0,0,−¼), (1,−3/2,13/2) and (−1,3/2,13/2) all to (−¼,0,0). A map with a global inverse cannot be three-to-one. Alpöge, a number theorist at Anthropic, announced it on X the day it was found.

WithLevent Alpöge

algebraic-geometrycounterexamplepolynomial-maps
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

The Jacobian conjecture (Keller, 1939) has been a celebrated open problem for 87 years, with many published false proofs in both directions. No prior counterexample in any dimension over characteristic 0 exists in the literature. Ott-Heinrich Keller's original formulation is the one addressed.

Caveats

Not yet peer-reviewed. The formula is public and checkable in seconds by computer algebra, which makes conventional peer review less load-bearing than usual, but the official record lists the conjecture as open until the literature catches up. The division of labor between Alpöge and the model has not been fully documented; autonomy graded conservatively pending a transcript.

Independent checks

whataifound.org (symbolic recomputation, SymPy): confirmed, det J = −2 identically; all three points map to (−¼,0,0)

Multiple mathematicians via public computer-algebra checks: confirmed · link ↗

Independent
2026-07-14
Formally verified AI-led
Model
GPT-5.6 Sol Pro
Field
mathematics
Posed
1996 · open 30 yrs
Notability
17 Wikipedia editions

Near-quadratic lower bound for derivative-free convex optimization

A lower bound of order d²/log d on the number of exact function evaluations needed to minimize a convex Lipschitz function, closing a gap open since 1996 and showing a 1996 algorithm was essentially optimal.

In zeroth-order optimization an algorithm may only query a function's value, never its gradient. Protasov's 1996 algorithm needed about d² evaluations in d dimensions, but the best known lower bound was only about d, leaving open whether a much faster method existed. The new bound of Ω(d²/log(d+1)) matches the upper bound to polylogarithmic factors. Kerger reports that after a ten-page prompt built on his own earlier failed attempts, the model produced the complete proof in a single 2.5-hour session with no intervention; he then reviewed it and formally verified the core bound in Lean 4, which compiles against Mathlib with no `sorry` and no bespoke axioms.

WithPhillip Kerger

optimizationcomplexity-theorylower-boundslean
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

The gap between Protasov's O(d²) upper bound (1996) and the O(d) lower bound is documented in the derivative-free optimization literature and had stood for three decades. No prior matching lower bound appears in the literature. The paper is explicit that the AI produced the argument.

Caveats

arXiv preprint, not peer-reviewed. The author states plainly that 'it is accurate to say that the AI model used solved the problem, not the author of this paper', which is the basis for the ai-led grade; the human wrote the prompt, reviewed the proof, and did the Lean formalization. Graded `formal` on the strength of the machine-checked Lean artifact for the core bound, not on the preprint as a whole.

Independent checks

Lean 4 / Mathlib compiler (author-run, artifact public): core Ω̃(d²) lower bound compiles with no sorry and no bespoke axioms · link ↗

Google DeepMind
2026-05-21
Formally verified Search scaffold
Model
AlphaProof Nexus (LLM + Lean)
Field
mathematics
Notability
20 Wikipedia editions

Nine Erdős problems and 44 OEIS conjectures proved with machine-checked proofs

An agent pairing language models with the Lean proof assistant resolved 9 of 353 open Erdős problems and 44 of 492 open OEIS conjectures, with every proof mechanically verified.

The system proposes proofs with a language model and checks every step in Lean, so a hallucinated argument cannot pass. Beyond the Erdős and OEIS totals it settled a 15-year-old question on log-concavity of pure O-sequences in codimension 3 and type 2, and proved an exact O(1/t) convergence rate for anchored gradient descent-ascent via a parameter choice not previously identified. Two of the Erdős problems had been open for 56 years. All formal proofs were released in a public repository.

WithPushmeet Kohli, Swarat Chaudhuri

leanautomated-theorem-provingerdos-problemscombinatorics
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

The Erdős problems were listed as open in the erdosproblems.com database and the OEIS conjectures as unproven at the time of the run; the paper documents which. In the course of the work the authors found misformalizations in the stated problems #125 and #741(i), which had to be corrected before resolution, a reminder that 'open' status in a database is itself fallible. Terence Tao's community wiki independently tracks AI contributions to Erdős problems and records these.

Caveats

The headline is a hit rate, not a sweep: 9 of 353 and 44 of 492. The authors state successes concentrate in combinatorics, convex optimization and number theory where Lean's library is mature, that the agent inherits its LLM's biases and shows high search variance, and that it cannot solve problems requiring substantial new theory. Formal verification guarantees the proofs are correct; it says nothing about whether the problems were deep. Autonomy is graded search-scaffold rather than autonomous: humans built the agent, chose the problem sets, and supplied the formalization targets.

Independent checks

Lean compiler via the paper's SafeVerify step: all proofs compile with no sorry and no disallowed axioms (sorryAx) · link ↗

Terence Tao's AI-contributions wiki: tracked among AI contributions to Erdős problems · link ↗

OpenAI
2026-05-20
Independently checked AI-led
Model
GPT-5 series reasoning model
Field
mathematics
Posed
1946 · open 80 yrs
Notability
10 Wikipedia editions

Disproof of the Erdős unit-distance conjecture

A reasoning model produced the core construction disproving a 1946 conjecture in discrete geometry, finding point configurations with more unit-distance pairs than the conjecture permitted.

The model found configurations showing the unit-distance count can grow at least as fast as n^1.014, exceeding the conjectured bound. Checked by external mathematicians including Fields Medalist Timothy Gowers, who called it 'the first example of a result produced autonomously by an AI that I find exciting in itself.'

discrete-geometrycombinatoricserdos
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

The unit-distance problem dates to Erdős (1946). Prior bounds were well documented; the construction is new.

Caveats

Human mathematicians shaped the problem framing and verified the construction. The strength of the endorsement from Gowers is notable but is a judgment, not a formal check.

Google DeepMind
2026-01-15
Peer reviewed Search scaffold
Model
AlphaEvolve (Gemini-based)
Field
mathematics

Structure in Bruhat intervals of permutation groups

AlphaEvolve identified unexpected special structure in Bruhat intervals for particular permutation groups.

Part of a continuing series of AlphaEvolve results in combinatorics. The system evolves candidate programs under a human-specified evaluation function, so the search is automated but the problem framing is human.

combinatoricsalphaevolve
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Documented as a new observation in the Quanta coverage; the specific structure was not previously catalogued.

Caveats

Reported via lab and press coverage. Independent replication status unclear at time of entry.

OpenAI / Harmonic
2026-01-13
Formally verified Autonomous
Model
GPT-5.2 Pro + Aristotle
Field
mathematics

Erdős problem #728 resolved and formalized in Lean

GPT-5.2 produced a proof of a previously open Erdős problem; Harmonic's Aristotle formalized it in Lean, making it the first Erdős problem regarded as fully resolved by AI with machine-checked proof.

The problem concerns the existence of infinitely many integers a, b, n satisfying divisibility and inequality conditions involving factorials. GPT-5.2 generated the argument, Aristotle formalized it in Lean, and a human-readable writeup was posted to arXiv. Modifications of the same argument also resolved problems #729 and #401.

number-theoryerdosleanformalization
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Recorded as open in the Erdős problems database prior to resolution. Terence Tao's AI-contributions wiki tracked the resolution and did not find the result in existing literature.

Caveats

Tao cautioned that the win 'says more about speed than difficulty': the problem was open but not considered deep. Lean formalization makes correctness essentially certain; significance is the contested part, not validity.

Independent checks

Lean kernel (machine-checked): verified · link ↗

Terence Tao: accepted · link ↗

OpenAI
2025-11-20
Peer reviewed AI-assisted
Model
GPT-5
Field
computer-science

Early science acceleration experiments with GPT-5

A multi-domain study documenting cases where GPT-5 contributed to research progress across mathematics, physics, biology and materials science.

A collection of case studies rather than a single result. Useful as a source of individual entries; each contained claim needs separate grading before it belongs in the registry on its own.

metamulti-domain
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Not applicable. This is a meta-report, not a single claim.

Caveats

Lab-authored evaluation of its own model. Individual case studies vary widely in strength and several have not been independently checked.

Google DeepMind
2025-11-03
Independently checked Search scaffold
Model
AlphaEvolve (Gemini-based)
Field
mathematics

AlphaEvolve across 67 problems: 20 improvements, 8 regressions

A systematic study with Terence Tao of an evolutionary coding agent on 67 open problems in analysis, combinatorics and geometry, reporting where it beat the literature and where it did not.

Rather than a single headline result, this is the systematic version: 67 problems attempted, with outcomes recorded either way. Tao reports roughly 20 cases of a new result, most others matching known bounds, and 8 where the tool did worse than the literature. Genuine advances include new three-dimensional constructions for finite-field Nikodym sets, which then prompted a human-refined hybrid construction beating both algebraic and random baselines, and an improved upper bound for Sidon sets, from 1.96365 to about 1.9526. On the well-known conjectures of Sidorenko, Sendov and Crouzeix it found no counterexample, which Tao notes may simply reflect that they are true.

WithTerence Tao, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Bogdan Georgiev, Adam Zsolt Wagner

combinatoricsgeometryanalysisevolutionary-search
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Prior bounds are cited per problem in the 81-page paper, with data and prompts released publicly. Tao flags the central novelty risk himself: for well-known problems the tool often proposed the optimal construction immediately, suggesting recall from training data rather than search, and one supposedly new four-dimensional Kakeya construction turned out to essentially match a prior Bukh–Chao paper. Entries in this registry drawn from the earlier AlphaEvolve release (kissing number, minimum overlap, matrix multiplication) are tracked separately.

Caveats

Tao's own framing is that the contribution is scale and adaptability, not a fundamental breakthrough, and he describes the LLM as supplying 'educated randomness' inside an evolutionary loop rather than doing symbolic reasoning. Substantial human expertise was required to design non-exploitable verifiers: the system reliably finds loopholes, such as placing points at nearly identical locations to satisfy a distance tolerance. Included here because the negative and null results are reported alongside the wins, which is rare and is what makes it citable.

Independent checks

Terence Tao (co-author, published assessment): reports ~20 new results, 8 worse than literature; cautions on training-data contamination · link ↗

OpenAI
2025-10-19
Already known Retrieval
Model
GPT-5
Field
mathematics

GPT-5 "solved 10 Erdős problems": it located existing solutions

An OpenAI executive announced that GPT-5 had solved 10 previously open Erdős problems and made progress on 11 more; the problems were only 'open' in the sense that one database maintainer was unaware of the already-published solutions the model surfaced.

OpenAI VP Kevin Weil posted that 'GPT-5 found solutions to 10 (!) previously unsolved Erdős problems.' Thomas Bloom, who maintains erdosproblems.com, replied that listing a problem as open there only means he personally was unaware of a solution, and that GPT-5 had found existing papers containing the solutions rather than proving anything new. The post was deleted; Demis Hassabis called the episode 'embarrassing' and Yann LeCun mocked it.

number-theoryerdosalready-knowncautionaryretrieval
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

By definition, that is the whole point of the episode. The solutions existed in the published literature; GPT-5's contribution was locating them, a genuinely useful literature-search result that was misdescribed as original problem-solving.

Caveats

Retained as a cautionary entry and a direct companion to the GPT-5 convex-optimization case. The underlying literature search was real and valuable; only the 'solved previously unsolved problems' framing was false. This is distinct from the later, genuine GPT-5.2 + Aristotle resolution of Erdős #728.

Independent checks

Thomas Bloom (erdosproblems.com maintainer): the problems were already solved in the literature; no new proofs · link ↗

Math, Inc.
2025-09-11
Author verified AI-assisted
Model
Gauss (autoformalization agent)
Field
mathematics
Notability
49 Wikipedia editions

Strong prime number theorem formalized in Lean by an autoformalization agent

An agent completed a Lean formalization of the strong prime number theorem in about three weeks, finishing a project two expert mathematicians had left blocked after 18 months.

Tao and Kontorovich began a Lean formalization of the strong prime number theorem (the version with an explicit error term) in January 2024, and by July 2025 had announced intermediate progress blocked on core difficulties in complex analysis. Math, Inc. reports that Gauss produced over 25,000 lines of Lean and roughly 1,100 theorems and definitions in about three weeks, completing the project. The repository README states that most statements and proofs were produced by the agent, with humans supplying the high-level blueprint, reviewing key lemmas, and adapting prior work.

WithTerence Tao, Alex Kontorovich

leanformalizationnumber-theoryprime-number-theorem
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

The prime number theorem is not new mathematics; the contribution is formalization. What was open was whether this particular formalization could be completed, and the surrounding claim is about speed. Recorded because formalization at this scale is a distinct kind of contribution and because the AI finished work humans had started and stalled on, rather than producing a new theorem. Prior art is the PrimeNumberTheoremAnd project itself, which this build reuses and which the README credits.

Caveats

This is a formalization result, not a mathematical discovery: no new theorem was proved. The comparison to '18+ months' is not like-for-like: Tao and Kontorovich worked intermittently, and the repository explicitly reuses definitions and some proofs from their earlier PrimeNumberTheoremAnd project. Math, Inc.'s announcement states the agent 'relies on natural language scaffolding supplied by human mathematicians, and requires high-level expert guidance'; the proportion of human effort is not quantified, and neither Tao nor Kontorovich is quoted in it. Graded author-verified rather than formal: the artifact is public and Lean-checkable, but the README does not itself assert a sorry-free build and no independent audit of that is on the public record. Vendor-announced, so the framing carries the usual caution.

Independent checks

Public Lean artifact (not independently audited): repository public and machine-checkable; README reports the development finished · link ↗

OpenAI
2025-08-01
Already known AI-assisted
Model
GPT-5 Pro
Field
mathematics

Improved step-size bound in smooth convex optimization

GPT-5 Pro extended a guaranteed-convexity window for gradient descent from η ≤ 1/L to η ≤ 1.5/L, but the optimal 1.75/L bound had already been published months earlier.

Bubeck posed an open problem from a convex optimization paper. After about 17 minutes of reasoning the model produced an improved bound using Bregman divergence inequalities and cocoercivity. Bubeck verified the proof as correct and described it as new mathematics.

WithSébastien Bubeck

optimizationalready-knowncautionary
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Version 2 of the source paper, published 2 April 2025, had already established the optimal 1.75/L bound, strictly stronger than the model's 1.5/L. The model was working from an earlier version and its result was superseded before it was produced.

Caveats

The proof itself is valid; the novelty claim is not. Analysts noted the argument largely recombined known techniques in different notation. Retained as a cautionary entry: this is the single most common failure mode in this space, and the reason every entry carries a novelty check.

Google DeepMind
2025-05-14
Independently checked Search scaffold
Model
AlphaEvolve (Gemini-based)
Field
computer-science
Posed
1969 · open 56 yrs
Notability
7 Wikipedia editions

4×4 complex matrix multiplication in 48 scalar multiplications

AlphaEvolve found a scheme multiplying 4×4 complex matrices with 48 scalar multiplications, improving on Strassen's 49 from 1969.

Strassen's 1969 algorithm had stood at 49 multiplications for 56 years in this setting. AlphaEvolve was not purpose-built for matrix multiplication; it is a general evolutionary coding agent. The scheme is exactly checkable.

algorithmslinear-algebraalphaevolve
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Strassen (1969) and subsequent literature exhaustively catalogued; 49 was the standing record for complex-valued 4×4. Confirmed new.

Caveats

Applies to complex-valued matrices specifically. Practical speedup is limited; the significance is theoretical. Related follow-up work by others has explored rank-23 schemes for 3×3.

Google DeepMind
2025-05-14
Independently checked Search scaffold
Model
AlphaEvolve (Gemini-based)
Field
mathematics
Posed
1694 · open 331 yrs
Notability
12 Wikipedia editions

Improved lower bound for the 11-dimensional kissing number

AlphaEvolve improved the best known configuration for the kissing number problem in 11 dimensions.

Part of a sweep across 50+ open problems in analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory. AlphaEvolve rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions in roughly 75% of cases and improved on the best known in about 20%. The kissing number problem asks how many non-overlapping unit spheres can touch a central one.

geometrysphere-packingalphaevolve
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Kissing number bounds are well catalogued per dimension; the 11D improvement was checked against the standing record.

Caveats

A lower-bound improvement via explicit construction, not a resolution of the problem. The 20% improvement rate means most of the 50+ problems saw no advance.

Google DeepMind
2025-05-14
Independently checked Search scaffold
Model
AlphaEvolve (Gemini-based)
Field
mathematics
Posed
1955 · open 70 yrs

Improved bound for the Erdős minimum-overlap problem

AlphaEvolve nudged the best known bound for Erdős's minimum-overlap constant, the first improvement since 2016, and sharpened several autocorrelation inequalities.

As part of a sweep across open problems in mathematical analysis, AlphaEvolve improved the upper bound on the Erdős minimum-overlap constant from about 0.380927 to about 0.380924, the first movement since 2016, and improved constants in autocorrelation inequalities. The gains are numerically small but exceed long-standing records, and the constructions are explicit and checkable.

analysiserdosalphaevolve
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

The minimum-overlap constant and the autocorrelation inequalities have well-tracked records. AlphaEvolve's values were compared against the standing bounds and confirmed to improve them.

Caveats

The improvements are marginal in magnitude, and both were improved again by other automated systems in 2026. As with the other AlphaEvolve results, a human-designed evaluator and search loop did the selecting.

FutureHouse
2025-05-01
Claimed AI-led
Model
Robin (multi-agent)
Field
biology

Candidate treatment for dry age-related macular degeneration

The Robin system automated hypothesis generation, experiment design and data analysis, identifying a novel candidate treatment for dry AMD.

Presented as an end-to-end automated discovery loop with humans executing the physical experiments.

drug-discoveryophthalmologyneeds-verification
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Not independently audited by this registry at time of entry. Novelty check pending.

Caveats

Lab-announced. No independent verification located. A candidate treatment is many years and several trial phases from being a treatment. Held at 'claimed' until outside confirmation.

Google
2025-02-19
Author verified AI-assisted
Model
AI Co-Scientist (Gemini 2.0 multi-agent)
Field
biology

AI co-scientist hypotheses on antimicrobial resistance and liver fibrosis

A multi-agent system generated hypotheses that were subsequently validated experimentally in the lab.

The system proposed mechanisms in antimicrobial resistance and liver fibrosis that wet-lab work then supported. Notable as one of the earliest cases of an AI-generated hypothesis surviving experimental test rather than just sounding plausible.

hypothesis-generationmicrobiologymulti-agent
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

The AMR mechanism proposed had reportedly been independently arrived at by a human group whose work was unpublished at the time, which complicates the novelty claim.

Caveats

Hypothesis generation with human-run validation, not autonomous discovery. Independent replication outside the collaborating labs is limited. Graded conservatively.

Google DeepMind
2024-07-25
Independently checked AI-led
Model
AlphaProof + AlphaGeometry 2
Field
mathematics

Silver-medal standard at the 2024 International Mathematical Olympiad

AlphaProof and AlphaGeometry 2 together solved four of the six 2024 IMO problems for 28 of 42 points (one short of the gold threshold), with the algebra and number-theory solutions produced and checked in the Lean proof assistant.

AlphaProof, a reinforcement-learning system that works inside Lean, solved two algebra problems and one number-theory problem (including P6, the competition's hardest, which few human contestants solved), while AlphaGeometry 2 solved the geometry problem in seconds. The two combinatorics problems went unsolved. The Lean-based solutions are machine-checked by construction; the full performance was graded by mathematicians Timothy Gowers and Joseph Myers under competition-style marking.

olympiadleanformalizationbenchmark
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

These are competition problems with published official solutions, so the achievement is a capability milestone (solving hard, known-answer problems under near-competition conditions) rather than a new mathematical result. The registry records it as such.

Caveats

Problems were hand-translated into formal Lean statements by people before AlphaProof attempted them, a real human contribution beyond posing the question, so autonomy is graded conservatively. AlphaProof also took far longer than the human time limit on some problems. This is benchmark performance on solved problems, not a discovery.

Independent checks

Timothy Gowers & Joseph Myers (competition-style grading): 28/42, silver-medal standard · link ↗

Video explainers
AlphaProof and AlphaGeometry 2 achieve a silver-medal score at the IMO, explainedElvis Saravia (DAIR.AI) YouTube ↗

Nothing loads from YouTube until you press play.

Google DeepMind
2023-12-14
Peer reviewed Search scaffold
Model
FunSearch (PaLM 2 / Codey)
Field
mathematics
Posed
1970 · open 53 yrs
Notability
2 Wikipedia editions

New lower bound constructions for the cap set problem

FunSearch discovered larger cap sets than any previously known construction, the first time an LLM-based system produced a genuinely new discovery on an established open problem.

FunSearch pairs an LLM that proposes programs with an automated evaluator that rejects incorrect ones, sidestepping hallucination by construction. Applied to extremal combinatorics, it found new large cap sets in both finite-dimensional and asymptotic cases. Published in Nature. Historically the first entry in this registry's scope.

combinatoricscap-setfunsearchhistoric-first
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Cap set bounds are a well-tracked literature; the constructions were confirmed to exceed the standing record at publication.

Caveats

The LLM proposes; a human-designed evaluator and search loop does the selecting. Calling this 'the AI discovered it' overstates the model's role, though the discovery is real.

Google DeepMind
2023-12-14
Peer reviewed Search scaffold
Model
FunSearch (PaLM 2 / Codey)
Field
computer-science
Posed
1971 · open 52 yrs
Notability
12 Wikipedia editions

Improved heuristics for online bin packing

FunSearch produced bin-packing heuristics outperforming standard baselines on benchmark distributions.

Discovered programs are human-readable, which allowed domain experts to inspect and deploy them. Practical rather than theoretical significance.

algorithmsheuristicsfunsearch
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Compared against best-fit and first-fit families and published heuristics; improvements are empirical on tested distributions.

Caveats

An empirical improvement on benchmark distributions, not a proved worst-case bound.

Google DeepMind
2023-11-29
Disputed Search scaffold
Model
GNoME (graph neural network)
Field
materials

Large-scale prediction of new stable crystalline materials (GNoME)

GNoME predicted about 2.2 million new inorganic crystal structures, roughly 380,000 of them flagged as thermodynamically stable, presented as an order-of-magnitude expansion of known stable materials.

Graph Networks for Materials Exploration (GNoME) is a graph neural network trained in an active-learning loop against density-functional-theory calculations to predict formation energies and filter candidates by stability. DeepMind released the predicted structures as a public dataset. Published in Nature.

materialscrystal-structuregraph-neural-networkcontested
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Stable-material prediction builds on the Materials Project and OQMD convex-hull databases. The dispute below is precisely about how much of GNoME's set is genuinely new relative to those existing catalogues.

Caveats

Substantive objections were raised and remain unresolved. Cheetham and Seshadri, reviewing the release, found 'scant evidence for compounds that fulfil the trifecta of novelty, credibility and utility,' noting that many entries are minor substitutional variants, radioactive, or otherwise unlikely to be useful. Stability here means a DFT convex-hull prediction, not experimental synthesis; the headline counts are predicted, not made.

Independent checks

Cheetham & Seshadri (critical review): disputed the novelty and utility of most predicted compounds · link ↗

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
2023-11-29
Disputed AI-led
Model
A-Lab (ML planning + robotics)
Field
materials

Autonomous laboratory reports solid-state synthesis of new inorganic compounds

Berkeley's A-Lab, an AI-driven autonomous laboratory, reported synthesising 41 novel inorganic compounds out of 58 targets over 17 days with minimal human intervention.

A-Lab coupled machine-learning synthesis-recipe prediction with robotic sample preparation, heating and X-ray characterisation, drawing targets from stability predictions including GNoME's. It reported making 41 of 58 targeted compounds autonomously. Published in Nature alongside GNoME.

materialsautonomous-labsynthesiscontested
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Targets were drawn from computed stability databases. The contested question is whether the synthesised phases were correctly identified and genuinely new, rather than known phases or misindexed results.

Caveats

A detailed critique led by Robert Palgrave argued that many of the 41 claimed compounds were misidentified from the X-ray data, in several cases likely known phases, mixtures, or amorphous products rather than the claimed novel crystals. It is the identification step, not the automation, that is disputed; the autonomy claim itself is not the weak point. A 2026 Author Correction from the team re-analysed the diffraction data and clarified that 'novel' was meant as new to their prediction platform rather than necessarily new to science.

Independent checks

Palgrave et al. (analysis of the reported diffraction data): disputed the identification of most claimed new compounds · link ↗

Authors' correction (Nature, 2026): re-analysed diffraction data; clarified 'novel' meant new to the platform, not to science · link ↗

Google DeepMind
2023-06-07
Independently checked Search scaffold
Model
AlphaDev (AlphaZero-based)
Field
computer-science

Faster sorting routines discovered and merged into the LLVM C++ library

AlphaDev found shorter branchless routines for sorting small fixed-length inputs; reverse-engineered to C++, they were merged into LLVM's libc++, the first change to those routines in over a decade.

AlphaDev treated the construction of a sorting routine as a single-player game played directly in CPU assembly, rewarding shorter and faster correct programs. For sort-3, sort-4 and sort-5 it removed instructions relative to the human-tuned library code, yielding large speedups on short sequences. The routines were reverse-engineered to C++ and accepted into the LLVM libc++ standard sort, which ships to millions of users. Published in Nature.

algorithmssortingreinforcement-learningdeployed
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

The libc++ small-sort routines had been hand-optimised by compiler engineers for years. AlphaDev's shorter instruction sequences were reviewed against the standing implementations and confirmed to be improvements before being merged.

Caveats

The gains are on very short fixed-length inputs; asymptotic sorting complexity is unchanged, and the headline percentage speedups apply only to those small cases. The 'independent' grade rests on LLVM maintainers reviewing and merging the code, not on a formal proof of optimality.

Independent checks

LLVM libc++ maintainers (code review and merge): reviewed and merged into the standard sort library · link ↗

Video explainers
AlphaDev: Discovering Faster Sorting Algorithms with Reinforcement LearningAI for Good (ITU) YouTube ↗

Nothing loads from YouTube until you press play.

Google DeepMind
2022-10-05
Peer reviewed Search scaffold
Model
AlphaTensor (AlphaZero-based)
Field
computer-science
Posed
1969 · open 53 yrs
Notability
7 Wikipedia editions

Faster matrix-multiplication algorithms found by reinforcement learning

AlphaTensor discovered matrix-multiplication schemes using fewer scalar multiplications than any previously known, including a way to multiply 4×4 matrices over GF(2) in 47 multiplications versus the 49 of two-level Strassen.

AlphaTensor recast the search for matrix-multiplication algorithms as a single-player game of decomposing a 3-D tensor into rank-one terms, then trained an AlphaZero-style agent to play it. It matched or beat the best known rank for many matrix sizes, and over GF(2) found a 4×4 scheme using 47 multiplications, improving on the 49 obtained by applying Strassen's 1969 algorithm twice. Every decomposition it returns is an exact identity checkable by hand. Published in Nature.

algorithmslinear-algebrareinforcement-learning
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Fast matrix multiplication has an exhaustively catalogued literature going back to Strassen (1969) and Laderman (1976). AlphaTensor's schemes were checked against the standing per-size records; the 4×4 result over GF(2) was new at publication.

Caveats

The 4×4 improvement is specific to characteristic-2 arithmetic and the practical speedup is limited. Within about a week, Kauers and Moosbauer used a classical computer search to improve the 5×5 GF(2) case from AlphaTensor's 96 multiplications to 95, showing conventional methods remained competitive. 'Discovered' here means an RL search over decompositions, not an autonomous mathematical insight.

Independent checks

Kauers & Moosbauer (computer-algebra search): verified and shortly improved on the 5×5 case · link ↗

Video explainers
How AI Discovered a Faster Matrix Multiplication AlgorithmQuanta Magazine YouTube ↗
AlphaTensor by DeepMind explainedYannic Kilcher YouTube ↗

Nothing loads from YouTube until you press play.

Google DeepMind
2022-02-16
Peer reviewed Search scaffold
Model
DeepMind RL controller
Field
physics
Notability
56 Wikipedia editions

Deep reinforcement learning controls tokamak fusion plasma

A reinforcement-learning controller learned to shape and stabilise the magnetic confinement of real fusion plasma inside the TCV tokamak, holding configurations that are hard to sustain by hand.

Working with EPFL's Swiss Plasma Center, DeepMind trained a deep reinforcement-learning agent to command the magnetic control coils of the TCV tokamak. Learning in a simulator against specified target shapes, the controller then ran on the real machine, holding elongated, snowflake and other configurations, including a 'droplet' state with two separate plasmas at once. It is one of the first times a single learned controller replaced the hand-engineered cascade normally required.

physicsfusionreinforcement-learningcontrol
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Magnetic plasma control is normally built from many separately engineered controllers. A single RL-learned controller running on a real tokamak was new; the Nature paper documents the comparison against conventional control.

Caveats

Demonstrated on the TCV research tokamak, not a power-producing reactor, and the policy was trained in simulation before transfer to hardware. This is a control-engineering advance, not a solution to fusion energy. Independent groups have since extended RL plasma control to other machines.

Google DeepMind
2021-07-15
Independently checked AI-led
Model
AlphaFold2
Field
biology
Posed
1972 · open 49 yrs
Notability
19 Wikipedia editions

Accurate protein structure prediction across the known proteome (AlphaFold2)

AlphaFold2 predicted three-dimensional structures for nearly all catalogued proteins from amino-acid sequence at accuracy rivalling experiment, work that earned the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

AlphaFold2 pairs an attention-based neural network with evolutionary sequence information to predict how a protein folds from its amino-acid sequence. At the 2020 CASP14 blind assessment it reached accuracy competitive with experimental methods, and DeepMind and EMBL-EBI then released predicted structures for over 200 million proteins, nearly the entire catalogued proteome. Demis Hassabis and John Jumper shared the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the work, alongside David Baker for computational protein design.

WithJohn Jumper, Demis Hassabis

protein-structurebiologyalphafoldnobel-prize
Novelty check, caveats & sources
Novelty check

Protein-structure prediction had been an open grand challenge for roughly fifty years, benchmarked every two years by the CASP assessment. AlphaFold2's CASP14 result was a discontinuous jump over all prior methods and is uncontested.

Caveats

AlphaFold predicts structures rather than determining them experimentally; outputs are computational hypotheses that can be wrong for disordered regions, alternative folds, point mutations, and many complexes. It predicts natural structures, not new biology on its own. The grade reflects the prediction step; the Nobel recognised the human-built method.

Independent checks

CASP14 blind assessment (independent assessors): accuracy competitive with experiment across most targets

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (2024 Nobel in Chemistry): awarded to Hassabis and Jumper for protein structure prediction · link ↗

Announced at the source

Official research hubs, where these labs post the discoveries we track here.

Other common places to find info and discussions

Community code, forums, and Q&A where we watch results get scrutinised. External links, open in a new tab.