Exponential rate of the densest sphere packing in ℝ^d: between d² 2^(−d) and 2^(−0.599d)
Even the exponential rate is unknown: the upper exponent stood for 48 years and the 2026 improvement is an unrefereed claim that itself marks the limit of linear programming, while lower bounds move by polynomial factors. Difficulty 76 sits just below diagonal Ramsey (78) and above cap sets (58). Application value 26 is second in the area after RH (codes, lattice-cryptanalysis cost models); leverage 42.5 as calibrated.
The problem
How fast does the best possible packing density of balls shrink as the number of dimensions grows? The gap between bounds is huge.
- 1Pack equal balls in d dimensions
- 2Best density falls exponentially with d
- 3Constructions give rate 1, bounds give 0.599
- 4True exponential rate is unknown
Statement. Let be the supremum of the density of packings of unit balls in . Determine the exponential rate , if it exists. The best known bounds place it between (from the upper bound of Kabatiansky and Levenshtein) and (from lattice packings of density about ). A specific sub-problem is the asymptotic strength of the .
Path to understanding
foundations → problemThe research entries this problem rests on, in the order to read them. Each links to its explainer.
- Start with
- Step 2
- Harmonic analysisTheory
- Fast matrix multiplicationAlgorithm
- Step 3
- Linear programmingAlgorithm
- Step 4
- Lattices and sphere packingTheory · host
- Then
- Exponential rate of the densest sphere packing in ℝ^d: between d² 2^(−d) and 2^(−0.599d)The problem
State of the art
Exactly solved only in dimensions 1, 2, 3, 8 and 24. Hales proved d = 3 (Annals 2005, with Ferguson), with the Flyspeck formal proof published in 2017; Viazovska proved d = 8 (arXiv 2016) and Cohn, Kumar, Miller, Radchenko and Viazovska d = 24, using the linear programming bound of Cohn and Elkies (2003). The best lower bounds for general packings are (1−o(1)) d log d / 2^(d+1) (Campos, Jenssen, Michelen and Sahasrabudhe, arXiv December 2023), the first asymptotic improvement over Rogers' 1947 bound. Klartag (arXiv April 2025) showed lattice packings of density at least c d² 2^(−d) exist. The best upper bound for 48 years was Kabatiansky–Levenshtein (1978), density at most 2^(−0.5990...d+o(d)); Cohn–Zhao showed the Cohn–Elkies method is at least as strong. On 1 August 2026 OpenAI released a document claiming that the Cohn–Elkies linear program has exact asymptotic strength sqrt(e/(2π)) per dimension, which would give Δ_d ≤ 2^(−(0.6044...+o(1))d), the first exponent improvement since 1978 and a limit for the method; the rate was conjectured in 2020 by Afkhami-Jeddi, Cohn, Hartman, de Laat and Tajdini; the work is unrefereed, and Scientific American (17 September 2026) reported that experts had only partly checked the accompanying Lean files. The gap between exponents about 0.60 and 1 remains. The dimension-8 proof was formally verified in Lean in February 2026 (Hariharan, Viazovska et al., with Math Inc.).
Realistic applications
Packing and kissing bounds feed error-correcting codes and the heuristic cost models of lattice sieving attacks. No deployed system depends on the exact asymptotics.
What counts as solved
A proof that the exponential rate exists and equals a specific constant, or a verified improvement of the Kabatiansky–Levenshtein exponent by any method. Unrefereed claims do not count until verified.
How it gets verified
Expert reviewOnly expert review of the argument is possible today.
The target is the exponential rate of the densest sphere packing in ℝ^d, or an improvement of the Kabatiansky–Levenshtein exponent. No Lean statement of the asymptotic rate exists in Mathlib or Formal Conjectures (Formal Conjectures pinned at commit e754a78 (17 October 2026)); the corpus does state the Cohn–Elkies linear-programming scheme (GreensOpenProblems/42.lean, solved for d = 1, 2, 8, 24), which covers the pack's sub-problem in fixed dimensions but not its asymptotics. Proofs go to referees; an explicit packing for a given d can be checked exactly but gives only lower bounds.
Claims under verification
+ add a claimWhere the work is
New constructions or bounds; numerics only suggest conjectures.
Bottlenecks
ranked by votes- #1TheoryExponential gap between constructions and bounds
Random lattice-type constructions give 2^(−d) times a polynomial, while linear programming gives 2^(−0.6d); no method bridges them.
Community grades
Sign in to add your own grade.
Connected problems
Progress
- Aug 1, 2026Claimed upper-bound exponent 0.6044 (unrefereed)source
OpenAI claim about the Cohn–Elkies program.
- Apr 7, 2025Klartag lattice packings of density d² 2^(−d)source
Further improvement by a factor d/log d.
- Dec 15, 2023First asymptotic improvement to Rogers' boundsource
Campos–Jenssen–Michelen–Sahasrabudhe.
- Mar 14, 2016E8 packing is optimalsource
Viazovska, via modular forms.