Science Markets
Markets / Computer science / Quantum computation

Quantum sampling can exceed classical computing.

Can a quantum computer efficiently generate a pattern of random results that no classical computer can match efficiently? This is a mathematical claim, not a speed benchmark.

The market sets the prices. This week's AI estimate helps you weigh the evidence. Settlement is not yet configured for this market; the proposal and challenge process still applies.

Trading paused. You can read the definition and evidence, but new trading is not available here. Pool links or recorded prices do not establish live access.
Oracle paused. New definition: activation, real evidence round and settlement configuration required. Closing and withdrawal stay open, and other markets are unaffected.
Resolution status
Open — no proposal on record

Final resolution records a contractual outcome, not proof of scientific truth. A weekly estimate or model agreement is not finalization.

Market prices

Price history

Dollars per token, before swap fees and price impact. These are recorded spot observations, not executable quotes.

YES priceNot available
NO priceNot available

No recorded prices yet. Trading prices appear once pools are live.

How these prices are recorded

Prices and AI share a time axis, but use separate labelled scales. Each dot is a recorded observation. Gaps are not filled, and AI readings are never used to fill missing prices. Raydium's pool-info API supplies spot prices, not historical candles; history starts when observations are saved. Fetch times do not establish when Raydium last updated a price.

Weekly AI assessment · current estimate
Demo
0 rounds published so far

The average of three AI assessments of the published evidence. It is a current estimate of that evidence, not proven scientific truth, not a calibrated probability, and not a settlement or payout.

This is demo data. No complete live AI assessment is available for this round; demo readings are excluded from the price chart.

Market definition · YES, NO and evidence rules

This is the frozen contract wording. Read the YES and NO tests, evidence requirements and unresolved cases before taking a position.

Canonical title

Efficient quantum sampling exceeds efficient classical sampling.

Exact claim · technical wording

SampBQP differs from SampBPP for uniform sampling problems: the input includes unary 1/epsilon; sampling must be within total-variation distance epsilon of the target distribution in runtime polynomial in input length and 1/epsilon. Quantum algorithms use a fixed universal finite gate set; classical algorithms are randomized Turing machines. Nonuniform advice and postselection are excluded.

For new terminal v2 launches, the science and evidence-cutoff schedule must be frozen and verified before tokens are issued. Each signed round uses the final corrected source version public by its UTC cutoff. Later evidence belongs in a later eligible round; the market has no calendar expiry. Historical contracts keep their original frozen terms.

How terminal v2 round IDs fix the cutoff

The immutable policy sets cutoff = initial_cutoff + (round_id − first_round_id), in UTC seconds. Round IDs may skip; they are cutoff-second identifiers, not consecutive weekly run numbers. The cutoff cannot regress and must be no later than the observation time, which must be no later than chain time. Three authorized signatures bind the round, cutoff, evidence commitment, market and frozen configuration. Legacy fixed-cutoff bindings remain unchanged; new launches require a verified v2 binding.

Resolution criteria

YES: An unconditional ZFC proof of the stated separation, with a quantum-samplable family and a lower bound against every uniform classical sampler under the same approximation definition. NO: An unconditional ZFC proof of equality of the stated sampling classes. A classical algorithm for one candidate family does not establish equality. A reduction relying on a conjectured noncollapse of the polynomial hierarchy is conditional and leaves this market UNDECIDED. Reference sources: Aaronson and Arkhipov: The Computational Complexity of Linear Optics (https://theoryofcomputing.org/articles/v009a004/). Evidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.

The definition does not change when an AI estimate changes. Read the listing policy and this market's settlement status.

This round's inputs

How these are made

No model provider was called for this round. This number is a labelled placeholder, not an assessment.

What each model said, and what would change its mind

What moved the number

—
Oct 16

This is a new contract, not a migrated position or a continuation of old forecast history. The initial 0.50 is an initialization convention, not an AI forecast or an assessed scientific probability. Reference links are background sources,…

Read full round note

This is a new contract, not a migrated position or a continuation of old forecast history. The initial 0.50 is an initialization convention, not an AI forecast or an assessed scientific probability. Reference links are background sources, not a claim that the YES/NO criterion has been met. No real round or liquidity was created by catalog synchronization.

The evidence packet

4 packet entries

These are stored packet descriptions. Entries without a source link may describe hypothetical findings or evidence requirements, not identifiable papers. This list is not an exact historical request record.

Aaronson and Arkhipov: The Computational Complexity of Linear Optics

Context

Primary theory paper distinguishing exact sampling and conditional approximate-sampling hardness.

Source link

Required positive observation

Supporting

An unconditional ZFC proof of the stated separation, with a quantum-samplable family and a lower bound against every uniform classical sampler under the same approximation definition.

Description only · no source link recorded

Required contrary observation

Contrary

An unconditional ZFC proof of equality of the stated sampling classes. A classical algorithm for one candidate family does not establish equality. A reduction relying on a conjectured noncollapse of the polynomial hierarchy is conditional and leaves this market UNDECIDED.

Description only · no source link recorded

Eligibility and unresolved outcomes

Method

Evidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.

Description only · no source link recorded

Every round on the record

0 rounds, newest first
RoundDatePanel estimateSpread

Discussion

Start a thread

No threads yet. Argue about the evidence, the panel, or whether the hypothesis is worded fairly.

Anyone can join the discussion. Sign in with a wallet to show your position beside your name.

Trade in your wallet

Trading is not open here. Both configured pools and verified price observations are required before availability can be assessed.

This site does not execute swaps. The guide explains wallet setup and pool links; a link or price observation alone does not establish deployment or trading access.

Wallet and Raydium guide

The estimate, the price, and what settles

The short version, before you trade
  • The estimate. Three AI models each read the evidence and return a score; the published number is their average, and it updates weekly.
  • What settles this market. Settlement is not yet configured for this market; the proposal and challenge process still applies.
  • What you trade. YES and NO are priced in dollars, set by traders in two pools.
  • Who you trade with. The pool itself, through your own wallet. This site supplies information and pool links.
  • What it is not. A guarantee that the hypothesis is true or false.
  • Being right about the science can still lose money.

Full risk detail (program, oracle, custody, legal and network risk) is in the terms and disclosures and the risk disclosure.