Anthropic's Disproof of the ETH
Comments on “Anthropic's Disproof of the ETH”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
A preprint posted to arXiv claims to refute the Exponential Time Hypothesis by giving a deterministic 3-SAT algorithm running in 2^o(n) time, extended to counting satisfying assignments. Anthropic says an internal Claude model found the core algorithm without human input and that it was formalized in Lean 4.
Why it ranked
No. 142 of 155 with a score of 0.56. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.95) and significance (0.87), lowest on substantiated (0.34). Overclaim counted against it (0.76). The judges disagreed most on reader interest (spread 0.50), so the story is marked contested.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Claims a landmark complexity result (ETH refuted) with a claimed AI-discovered proof and Lean formalization; significant and widely interesting, but unverified preprint and bold claims lower substantiation and practical relevance for builders.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A purported AI-generated, Lean-formalized refutation of ETH would be a landmark for complexity theory and AI research, but the supplied text gives no proof or reproducible details, making its extraordinary conclusion poorly substantiated and likely overclaimed.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.56total under rubric v2.2Contestedjudges differ by 0.50 on reader interest, 0.45 on overclaim
- Significance0.87
- Reader interest0.78
- Audience breadth0.71
- Practical relevance0.36
- Substantiated0.34
- Technical depth0.47
- New information0.95
- Counts against: Promotional0.15
- Counts against: Overclaim0.76
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.72 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.87 | 0.23 | +0.24 | +0.210 |
| Reader interest | 0.45 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.78 | 0.50 , above the contested threshold | +0.26 | +0.202 |
| Audience breadth | 0.61 | 0.80 | 0.72 | 0.71 | 0.19 | +0.13 | +0.092 |
| Practical relevance | 0.24 | 0.35 | 0.48 | 0.36 | 0.24 | +0.22 | +0.079 |
| Substantiated | 0.31 | 0.45 | 0.25 | 0.34 | 0.20 | +0.05 | +0.017 |
| Technical depth | 0.45 | 0.60 | 0.38 | 0.47 | 0.22 | +0.05 | +0.024 |
| New information | 0.91 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.95 | 0.08 | +0.05 | +0.048 |
| Promotional | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.16 | −0.19 | −0.029 |
| Overclaim | 0.83 | 0.50 | 0.95 | 0.76 | 0.45 , above the contested threshold | −0.11 | −0.084 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.558 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.558 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-28/142/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-28/142.svg" alt="Ranked #142 on Rubric, 28 Oct 2026" width="252" height="28"></a>Also covered by
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 25 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 28 Oct 2026, 06:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.