Not evaluated
Second autocorrelation inequality: lower bound 0.9626
Previous 0.9610, AlphaEvolve
The gist
For the second autocorrelation inequality, J. Kang and an agent (Claude) obtained a lower bound of 0.9626, against 0.9610 for AlphaEvolve; the blog post of April 13, 2026 says it was first found by an agent; no DiscoverIA status yet.
DiscoverIA status on October 12, 2026: not evaluated, meaning no third-party evaluation found.
AI draft, not reviewedWhat has not been reviewed?
Text written by an AI (DiscoverIA pipeline), on . The status and its sources come from the registry; only the explanatory text has not been reviewed. A reported error is corrected, then the text is reviewed.
Cite this entry
A single status snapshot since Oct 12, 2026: a citation always points to a dated snapshot.
Cite snapshot 1, Oct 12, 2026
APA citation with the dated link
BibTeX @misc, key discoveria-ea-second-autocorrelation-r1
@misc{discoveria-ea-second-autocorrelation-r1,
author = {{DiscoverIA}},
title = {Second autocorrelation inequality: lower bound 0.9626 (previous 0.9610, AlphaEvolve)},
howpublished = {DiscoverIA registry, entry ea-second-autocorrelation},
note = {Status “Not evaluated”, snapshot 1, recorded on October 12, 2026. New result},
year = {2026},
url = {https://discoveria.ai/entry/ea-second-autocorrelation#releve-1},
urldate = {2026-10-12}
}Dated link opens this snapshot in the history
To understand ≈ 30 s reading time, estimated
What it changes
If the value holds, the best known lower bound would go from 0.9610 to 0.9626. According to the blog, the ideas came from a student and the code was written by Claude; the value was then refined by an agent, an agent, an agent and Together-AI.
What remains unclear
The verifier is a public program, not a third party. ImprovEvolve (arXiv 2602.10233) announces 0.96258 without publishing the solution; table 1 of the paper does not cite it and keeps 0.9610 as the previous record. The online ranking shows 0.963588110582029 (an agent, July 22, 2026), different from the paper's value.
Read the paper
Harnessing the Collective Intelligence of AI Agents in the Wild for New Discoveries
What it establishes : The authors present EinsteinArena and report that by May 2026 its agents had set 11 new records across 15 open problems, including the kissing number in dimension 11, raised from 593 to 604.
Where to start : The abstract, then Table 1 (Section 2.2): the 15 problems, with the previous and new records. Section 3 and Appendix B cover dimension 11 in detail, Appendix A each problem. The arXiv abstract page announces 12 records, the paper itself 11.
Written by an AI · reviewed by a human
For experts
Sources, method, key facts, status history, report an error
Status
Not evaluated
Recorded on · arxiv.org
Step 1 of 4 on the scale: not evaluated. Next step: under review.
- Announced
- Recordednot evaluated
- nextTo follow
What this status means
Source reading : Source read word for word (level 3 of 3)
The result is declared neither right nor wrong.
To move to “Under review”: a public review under way. To “Peer reviewed”: a journal publication or a review by named experts.
Sources
- Main sourcearxiv.orgpage read word for word · consulted on Oct 12, 2026 ·
EinsteinArena agents improved the best known lower bound to
- Papertogether.aipage read word for word · consulted on Oct 12, 2026 ·
the new bound was initially found by [an agent]
- Repositorygithub.comlink only, reading not recorded
- Repositoryeinsteinarena.com · api/problems/second-autocorrelation…link only, reading not recorded
- Repositoryeinsteinarena.com · bestlink only, reading not recorded
- Repositoryeinsteinarena.com · problems/second-autocorrelation…link only, reading not recorded
Method
DiscoverIA status: not evaluated, meaning that no third-party evaluation has been found in the sources read. Set on October 12, 2026 from arxiv.org (page read, quotation checked word for word: “EinsteinArena agents improved the best known lower bound to”).
Limits
No named third party: the recorded checks come from the claimant or from a platform tool. DiscoverIA has not checked this result itself.
Key facts
- Claimed by
- J. Kang (cited as author of ref. [10] of the paper) with an agent (Claude); refined by an agent, an agent, an agent and Together-AI (Name replaced by a role)
announced on Apr 2026 - Nature
- new result
- Field
- Mathematics (harmonic analysis / autocorrelation inequalities)
- Checked by
- the platform's public checker (a tool); no third party named
- Sources
- 6 : 2 read word for word, 4 links only
- This entry
- AI draft, not reviewed
Status history
Only one observation so far.
- 01
First observation:Not evaluatedCurrent status
not evaluated: only the platform's public checker, no third party named
Source: arxiv.orgread word for word
An observation is added; none is ever erased.
In the same set
EinsteinArena: a platform where AI agents tackle open problems with public verifiers · 16 entries
- Not evaluated : Kissing number in dimension 11: at least 604 spheres (previous bound 593, AlphaEvolve)
- Not evaluated : Erdős minimum overlap problem: upper bound 0.380871 (previous 0.380876, TTT-Discover)
- Not evaluated : First autocorrelation inequality: upper bound 1.5028609 (previous 1.5028629, TTT-Discover)
- Not evaluated : Second autocorrelation inequality: lower bound 0.9626 (previous 0.9610, AlphaEvolve)
- Not evaluated : Third autocorrelation inequality: upper bound 1.4523 (previous 1.4556, AlphaEvolve)
- Not evaluated : Flat polynomials of degree 69: 1.28093 (previous 1.34093, AlphaEvolve)
- Not evaluated : Distance ratio of 16 points in the plane: 12.889230 (previous 12.889266, AlphaEvolve)
Related frontiers
Report an error or suggest a source
Thank you, your message was sent.
Sending failed. Try again, or write to contact@discoveria.ai.
Is your result listed?What each status requires, correcting this entry, replying to it.