Categories
Uncategorized

ETH Refutation: Examination and Discussion

Dear colleagues,

OpenAI has informed us that it has obtained a claimed refutation of the Exponential Time Hypothesis and plans to release the supporting documents to the community. Our names may appear in connection with that release. We would like to explain our perspective and invite your participation in two related but distinct efforts: examining this particular claim, and considering how our community should respond to AI-generated breakthroughs more generally.
Our involvement should not be taken as certification of the claim. A result of this significance requires careful, independent scrutiny and an understanding that others can reconstruct, question, and build upon. We would like to work with the community toward that understanding.

  1. Organizing the community’s examination of the ETH claim
    The immediate task is to examine the argument, establish its correctness or identify its limitations, and understand its consequences. Coordination can help distribute this work, make progress visible, and avoid unnecessary duplication. It should remain open to independent approaches and criticism, without conferring ownership of the effort on a company or a selected group of researchers, including ourselves.
    We would welcome your ideas on the following questions:
    How should we (the research community) organize the examination of the proof so that researchers can contribute independently while sharing questions, gaps, corrections, and verified steps?
    How can we make the argument accessible through explanations, simplified proofs, seminars, and other shared resources?
    How should we organize the study of its consequences for algorithms, lower bounds, and existing research directions, while clearly distinguishing established conclusions from possibilities that remain to be explored?
    If the claim is correct, it will change an important part of theoretical computer science. ETH has helped organize decades of research, connecting problems and sharpening our understanding of computational difficulty. The ideas, reductions, and techniques developed through that work retain their value, even as some of their interpretations may change. There should be room both for excitement about new possibilities and for thoughtful reassessment of directions many of us have pursued for years.
  2. Developing norms for AI-generated breakthroughs
    Beyond this particular claim, we should expect further AI-generated results that challenge established assumptions or open new research directions. These developments raise questions that extend beyond the organization of any one verification effort.
    Early access can help researchers check a result before release, but it also creates opportunities unavailable to others. As discoveries come faster, recognition may go mainly to those who publish first or have the most powerful tools, while the work of checking, explaining, and building on results receives less credit. We should consider these issues openly rather than rely on good intentions alone.
    We would welcome discussion of three broader questions:
    What expectations should govern early access to AI-generated results, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and the use of unpublished material for subsequent research?
    How should credit recognize both new discoveries and the work of checking, fixing, simplifying, explaining, and extending them?
    How can we support students and researchers as methods and research directions change, while preserving the understanding and judgment needed to question results and develop new ideas?
    We do not have final answers. We hope to work with the community both on the immediate ETH effort and on these broader questions. Our aim is to advance what is known while strengthening our shared capacity to understand, teach, and extend it.
    Russell Impagliazzo (UC San Diego)
    Ramamohan Paturi (UC San Diego)
    Ryan Williams (MIT)


Proposed arrangements for community participation
ETH release URL: This is the authoritative location for the original PDFs, any accompanying source or formalization, and subsequent corrections.
ETH_Repository maintained by Russell, Mohan and Ryan to facilitate dissemination of researchers’ notes, explanations, comments, corrections, and follow-up results
Google Form URL: We invite your feedback on the questions raised in our message to the TCS community and on the desirability, format, and timing of a proposed virtual meeting before the end of 2026. The form also lets you opt in to ETH updates and indicate whether—and in what capacity—you would like to volunteer. Responses will be reviewed by the organizers.

Public discussion: ethdiscussion.blog is for news and announcements related to ETH. It is also a forum for public comments and discussion.

rpaturi7da97240c3's avatar

By rpaturi7da97240c3

Russell Impagliazzo and Mohan Paturi are professors in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at UC San Diego. Ryan Williams is a professor of EECS at MIT.

4 replies on “ETH Refutation: Examination and Discussion”

Hello gentlemen,My name is Frank Dylan Rosario. I have been in touch with Ramamohan Paturi regarding my concerns about the provenance of portions of OpenAI’s recently published paper on the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH).

Dr. Wang and I have provided our contact information and hope to share a private GitHub repository containing much of our proprietary code. Unfortunately, we cannot make this repository public at this time.

However, we can provide exclusive extractions if necessary, as our code directly pertains to a significant portion of the work presented by OpenAI. Please reply to this email or reach out to me directly at. Rosario: soltrinox@gmail.com. – Wang: orchestor@gmail.com

A short note for anyone checking the formal side. I replayed both Lean developments (OpenAI’s SubexponentialSAT challenge and Anthropic’s eth/) with Comparator, using Lean’s kernel and nanoda. Both check against their own statements with only the standard axioms. OpenAI’s Lean defines no ETH, so I wrote the textbook ETH once in Lean and proved that each statement refutes it in that lab’s own machine model; the step between machine models stays informal for both. Summary and records: https://carlostoledo.co/eth/

Disclosure: my tools and these proofs are written with Claude (Anthropic’s model), and one of the two claims is Anthropic’s. I have no affiliation with either lab.

To the Committee and Participants,
Professor Williams’s remark that this situation looks like a “DDoS attack on the mathematical community” raises a fundamental and somewhat ironic question: Why does the scientific community suddenly—suddenly!—rush to study 1,174 pages of unverified “corporate drivel,” while simultaneously ignoring the published work of independent researchers who offer concise, transparent findings—including work that makes appropriate use of AI tools? Isn’t this a case of double standards and hypocrisy?
For decades, institutional academia has constructed artificial barriers to shield itself from independent peer review. For example the Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) guidelines—stipulating mandatory publication in specific peer-reviewed journals before a Millennium Prize claim can even be evaluated—function less as a tool for scientific progress and more as an administrative gatekeeping mechanism. From a structural and financial perspective, these non-profit 501(c)(3) frameworks act as corporate tax havens designed to validate pre-allocated institutional grants and legacy models (such as the frantic, rule-bending rubber-stamping of the arXiv preprints in 2007 to protect US Ricci flow funding).
You have engineered a closed system where access is determined by corporate computing budgets, not clean logic. Now, OpenAI and Anthropic have used those exact parameters against you, employing raw brute-force computing power to dump an unreadable 1174-page volume onto your desks to secure corporate priority before the economic bubble bursts.
As Carlos Toledo has already pointed out in this thread, the Lean 4 formalization didn’t even check the actual Word RAM complexity claimed in the paper; it merely verified a simulated environment on a multi-stack Turing machine. The AI bypassed the paper’s messy
errors and space complexity explosions while you were forced to pause your own work to analyze its noise.
What did you expect? It is written: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” You placed yourselves in these artificial conditions, and now the system has simply scaled your own gatekeeping filters to an absurd infinity.
Thank you for your attention.

Leave a Reply