The Proportion of Zeta Zeros on the Critical Line
Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.
Statement
The Riemann hypothesis asserts that every nontrivial zero of the zeta function lies on the critical line. Short of proving it, the standard measure of progress is the proportion of zeros known unconditionally to lie there: Selberg established a positive proportion, Levinson reached a third in 1974, Conrey two fifths in 1989, and the record had crept to about 41.6%. This proves at least of zeros are simple and on the line, and that at least 0.83625 of zeros are distinct.
Context
An unconditional record, not a resolution: the Riemann hypothesis is untouched, and Anthropic states it does not expect these techniques to lead to a proof of it. The improvement is large, from about 41.6% to 67.25%, and the constant is closed form.
The unconditional proportion of zeros on the critical line is the standard yardstick for progress toward the Riemann hypothesis, with a fifty-year record ladder through Levinson and Conrey. Scored above the Jacobian conjecture at 65 because of what it is attached to, and far below the Riemann hypothesis at 100 because a proportion bound is not the hypothesis.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
Claude was asked to take a real stab at the Riemann hypothesis, with the mathematical choices left to it, and the bound improvement came out as a byproduct of failing at that. It generated and discarded roughly 650 ideas in a first session; in a second it coordinated about 60 subagents which ran some 2,400 shell commands, wrote hundreds of scripts, checked numerically against known zeros and refereed one another. Two subagents developed the key ideas, thirteen fed them, thirty tried and failed, thirteen validated, two drafted the paper. Roughly 31 million output tokens across two Claude Code sessions.
The decisive step was combining the unconditional pair-correlation work of Baluyot, Goldston, Suriajaya and Turnage-Butterbaugh with a 2000 paper of Bombieri, treating the whole function space at once with the quadratic form allowed to be non-diagonal rather than splitting it. Claude also proposed writing the result up, checked 54 arXiv papers for prior art, and recommended that a human number theorist validate it.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: partially checkedscope Lean formalization of the core argument; statement correspondence not independently audited
A sorry-free Lean 4 / Mathlib formalization accompanies the paper, and the headline statements are built from Mathlib's own riemannZeta and analyticOrderAt with the corresponding counting functions, rather than from an assumed form of the result. Curator check: the repository is real and substantial, 329 Lean files, Apache licensed to Anthropic.
Held at the unaudited rung rather than promoted, for a specific reason. Building on Mathlib primitives is real statement anchoring and reduces drift, but the assembly of those primitives into the proportion claim is the paper's own, and that assembly is exactly what nobody independent has audited. The same organisation produced the proof and the formalization.
On human review: two Anthropic mathematicians studied and validated the work, and Brian Conrey and Dan Goldston examined the paper on short notice. That is meaningful scrutiny but not the top verification rung, which asks for named experts with no stake who endorse the claim. The announcement reports examination rather than endorsement, and Goldston is an author of the prior work the result builds on.
No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.