OpenAI reports QMA-hardness of continuum Coulomb energy

Approximating the electronic Coulomb spectral infimum in three-dimensional continuum space is QMA-hard when positive integer nuclear charges use binary encoding, nuclei have distinct rational positions and electron count is unary; a deterministic polynomial-time reduction produces a promise gap of at least one.

Sources for this record

What was already known

Earlier hardness results used a finite orbital basis or restricted molecular input models. Those reductions did not establish hardness of the full antisymmetric continuum energy with the stated binary-charge encoding.

AI involvement AI-led

OpenAI credits itself as manuscript author and states that its internal frontier model produced the results in this release. Individual human input is not detailed enough to establish task-only autonomy.

OpenAI is named as author on the manuscript, and its release attributes the results to an internal frontier model. The individual human input is not detailed enough to establish autonomy.

Importance Notable

Establishes quantum complexity hardness directly for a continuum Coulomb Hamiltonian with unrestricted spin sectors.

Limitations

The charge values and inverse nuclear separations can be exponentially large despite polynomial descriptions. The claim is hardness, not QMA membership or hardness for unit charges.

Technical verification Formal (Lean 4)

OpenAI reports a Lean proof matching the selected claim.

Formal checking

The pinned Lean note covers a deterministic polynomial-time many-one QMA-hardness reduction for binary-encoded charges, full continuum antisymmetric states and all spin sectors.

Checker
OpenAI-reported Lean 4 / Comparator
Scope
Approximating the electronic Coulomb spectral infimum in three-dimensional continuum space is QMA-hard when positive integer nuclear charges use binary encoding, nuclei have distinct rational positions and electron count is unary; a deterministic polynomial-time reduction produces a promise gap of at least one.
Basis
Reported by the linked checker
Evidence source

Checking a formal statement does not establish that it matches the original problem.

Human understanding Few

Few is the default when evidence for a higher level is insufficient. No named person is documented as explaining the central argument for this assessed contribution.

Correction and publication history

2026-10-18 · publication

Primary manuscript, attribution, prior-work, and scoped checking review for non-notifying local inclusion.

Read this published revision