Not evaluated
The 2-to-1 Games Conjecture with perfect completeness (family 105)
The gist
In its release of October 6, 2026, OpenAI presents a manuscript on perfect completeness for 2-to-1 games.
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-oai-fam-105-2-1-games-conjecture-perfect-completeness-r1
@misc{discoveria-oai-fam-105-2-1-games-conjecture-perfect-completeness-r1,
author = {{DiscoverIA}},
title = {The 2-to-1 Games Conjecture with perfect completeness (family 105)},
howpublished = {DiscoverIA registry, entry oai-fam-105-2-1-games-conjecture-perfect-completeness},
note = {Status “Not evaluated”, snapshot 1, recorded on October 12, 2026. New result},
year = {2026},
url = {https://discoveria.ai/entry/oai-fam-105-2-1-games-conjecture-perfect-completeness#releve-1},
urldate = {2026-10-12}
}Dated link opens this snapshot in the history
To understand ≈ 20 s reading time, estimated
What it changes
If the manuscript were correct, it would concern the perfect completeness of 2-to-1 games (games whose constraints link two possible answers of one player to a single answer of the other), that is, the case where a strategy wins every time. The family title ties it to the 2-to-1 Games Conjecture.
What remains unclear
The Lean (a language in which a computer checks every step of a proof) is supplied by OpenAI itself: its review field reads “unchecked”, and no third-party verification is recorded. The sources read do not state that conjecture.
For experts
Sources, method, key facts, status history, report an error
Status
Not evaluated
Recorded on · github.com · 105.md
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 sourcegithub.com · CONTENTS.mdlink only, reading not recorded
- Repositorygithub.com · Perfect-completeness-for…link only, reading not recorded
- Lean proofgithub.com · 105.mdpage read word for word
- Lean proofgithub.com · PerfectCompleteness.leanlink only, reading not recorded
Method
The manuscript “Perfect completeness for 2-to-1 games”, dated September 23, 2026, is attributed to an unreleased internal OpenAI model. The file lean/docs/105.md describes the scope of the Lean formalisation, which has 1 Comparator statement (lean/ComparatorChallenges/PerfectCompleteness.lean); the family is among the sources listed in formalization.yaml, and history.md reports no revision of the manuscript. DiscoverIA status: not evaluated, meaning that no third-party evaluation has been found in the sources read. Set on October 12, 2026 from github.com (page read, quotation checked word for word: “describes the scope of the Lean formalization”).
Limits
No named third party: the recorded checks come from the claimant or from a platform tool. The claimant supplies a Lean proof; as of this date, DiscoverIA has found no independent verification of this proof or of the result.
Key facts
- Claimed by
- OpenAI (unreleased internal model)
announced on Oct 6, 2026 - Nature
- new result
- Field
- Theoretical computer science
- In openai/math
- family 105, section “Theoretical computer science”, 1 manuscript dated Sep 23, 2026
- Lean proof
- supplied by the claimant, marked “unchecked” (not reviewed) in its repository
- Revisions
- none reported by the claimant
- Checked by
- claimant (Lean supplied, not checked by a third party)
- Sources
- 4 : 1 read word for word, 3 links only
- This entry
- AI draft, not reviewed
Status history
Only one observation so far.
- 01
First observation:Not evaluatedCurrent status
Family with a Lean proof supplied by the claimant. No third-party check read; the source marks this proof as not reviewed (“unchecked”).
Source: github.comread word for word
An observation is added; none is ever erased.
In the same set
openai/math: 719 manuscripts in 372 families from an unreleased internal model · entry 102 of 372, by family number
- Not evaluated : Claimed proof of the Unique Games Conjecture (family 102)
- Not evaluated : Derandomization of logarithmic space: L=RL=BPL (family 103)
- Not evaluated : Quasipolynomial algorithms for mean-payoff, stochastic and parity games (family 104)
- Not evaluated : The 2-to-1 Games Conjecture with perfect completeness (family 105)
- Not evaluated : Hardness of coloring three-colorable graphs (family 106)
- Not evaluated : Matrix multiplication exponent at most 9/4 (family 107)
- Not evaluated : A cubic permanent–determinant lower bound (family 108)
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.