Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 independently clear nine-loop amplitude past Dixon's record
Every URL the pipeline pulled into ranking for this issue — primary sources plus the supporting and contradicting findings each Researcher returned. Inline citations in the issue point back here.
Sources
Yes, Claude can do Nine Loops anthropic.com
References
4gravitons (Matt von Hippel, original challenge) 4gravitons.com
It Only Counts When AI Gets to My Field — challenging AI labs to reach nine loops in planar N=4 super-Yang-Mills or settle the seven-loop divergence in N=8 supergravity, on an academic-scale budget.
Not Even Wrong (Peter Woit) math.columbia.edu
The recent surge in high-energy physics preprints on arXiv is clearly driven by LLM usage, but [Woit] questioned the actual scientific significance of these results, noting the calculation remains within a simplified theory (N=4 SYM) that lacks direct practical application to the physical world.
Coverage of Song He / CAS Zenodo release vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com
On September 17, 2026, Song He, Jirong Jing and Xiang Li published ‘The Symbols of Six-Gluon MHV Amplitudes through Nine Loops’ on Zenodo, using GPT-6 to solve specific bootstrap constraints while humans managed the framework — cross-checks showed 100% agreement on all 107,053 nonzero word coefficients with Anthropic’s run.
Unite.ai unite.ai
Dixon described the AI’s ability to execute the fragile multi-step recipe as a remarkable victory, noting that if any single component had contained a mistake, the entire result would have collapsed ‘like a failed soufflé.’
gpts24.com (Fable 5.1 evaluation summary) gpts24.com
The Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index found Fable 5.1 more prone to ‘confident wrongness’ than Fable 5, and the model consumes roughly 1.7× more output tokens per task — a five-hour subscription quota can be exhausted in under 30 minutes during intensive physics runs.
cellcog.ai analysis / HN-style commentary cellcog.ai
Skeptics noted that Anthropic has not released the full conversation traces or artifacts produced by Claude, and compared the situation to a ‘Microsoft tax’ — a few companies holding the keys to progress via monthly subscriptions to proprietary science harnesses.
