Case record
The best packing known for 156 squares, side 12.97916585…, Ostashev 2026. Regularized by the Squares Project with Daniel's regularizer (evand/square-packing, MIT)
As published
The packing as published, Ostashev 2026 [Mishapolk KKT refinements 2026-10-14]

n=156

= corrects Nagamochi 2005open

12.51041214…≤s(156)≤12.97916585…

12.5112.979
121314
12.49013.490
nn+1

Proven

12.51041≤s(156)≤12.979166

  • exact

Citation record n-156

lowerKarakuş 2026, arXiv corrects Nagamochi 2005 (confirmed T-083)

upperOstashev et al., GitHub (confirmed T-186)

Open

  • optimality

Bounds

Best known packing

12.97916585…

12.97916585383427646
Found by
Ostashev 2026
Improved by
Couzo, PingYou Ltd, Polkovskyi
Construction
—
Source
[Mishapolk KKT refinements 2026-10-14]
Evidence
E-mishapolk-70a033f-certificate-report
Verified upper bound

12.97916585…

12.97916585383427646

The reported value, verified here.

Evidence
E-mishapolk-70a033f-exact-feasibility
Reported lower bound

12.59123326…

12.591233265143
Proved by
Hosono 2026
Kind
counting
Scope
Unrestricted unit-square packing with independent rotations and disjoint interiors.
Note
Hosono's closed form (wand125, 13 October 2026, T-180): s(N) >= a(N) for every non-square N >= 49, from a measure of line segments on 34 intervals of the fractional part. At n=156, k = 12 and interval 27 give a(156) = 12.591233265143578179003501158359..., here rounded down at 12 and 30 places. The source replayed its certificate with its own checker; no replay has run here.
Source
[wand125 closed form 2026-10-14]
Evidence
E-wand125-closed-form-report
Verified lower bound

12.51041214…

12.5104121494
Corrects
Nagamochi 2005 (T-007)
Evidence
E-karakus-strip-lower, E-karakus-strip-measure-interval
Gap

0.46875370…

Verified upper minus verified lower.

Results in the register

  • T-007 V0 C1 Nagamochi · 2026-08-31 · 321 cases

    s(n)≥min(⌈n⌉,n−2⌊n⌋+1+1) for 4≤n≤324

  • T-056 V3 C3 Couzo · 2026-09-29 · 49 cases

    Smaller packings for 49 counts from n=68 to 307, each certified two independent ways

  • T-083 V3 C3 Karakuş · 2026-10-02 · 301 cases

    s(n)≥1/2+n−⌊n⌋+1/4 for every nonsquare 8≤n≤324

  • T-085 V3 C3 Karakuş; Vlasenko · 2026-10-02 · 315 cases

    Nagamochi 2005, Lemma 1 is false for every container with a>3 and b>2

  • T-098 V3 C3 Daniel after Couzo, de Winter, Ellsworth, Levy · 2026-10-05 · 48 cases

    Exact optima of 48 known-best packings: s(n) ≤ S', 3.5e-13 to 5.0e-11 below each printed side

  • T-149 V3 C3 Ostashev after Nakajima, Levy, Xu · 2026-10-11 · n = 155, 156, 211

    New packings of 155, 156 and 211 squares, each with an exact rational certificate

    Claim and records
    Claim
    Three complete rational source certificates by Ostashev, reported on jlevy/squares#501, prove finite upper bounds at the exact sides they state: s(155)≤64762127034792280678268012662770039849775757530809316735783064762127034792280678268012662770039849775757530809316735783/5000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, s(156)≤8111982883527766297069290937797918339306619994848173142743008111982883527766297069290937797918339306619994848173142743/625000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and s(211)≤74981683606681578473292015533873289965462274509366086287257074981683606681578473292015533873289965462274509366086287257/5000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

    Each certificate gives a rational side and, for each unit square, a rational centre and the tangent of its half-angle, in the source's sqcert format: the 60-digit optimum of its packing with the load-bearing squares scaled by 1 + 1e-20, then every centre and the side dilated by 1 + 1e-60. These are the certificates of the repository as it stood when read, which replaced, the day the issue was filed, the three whose sides the issue prints; each issue side is above the retained one, so its bound follows.

    The author reports that each packing passes its own C++ checker in GMP rational arithmetic, on the shipped certificates with no dilation and no tolerance and on certificates rebuilt from the 60-digit decimal packings, and an 80-digit mpmath cross-check written separately; the README also states that each side is the exact optimum of its packing's contact topology, with nonnegative KKT multipliers. Those statements are the author's; no source program ran here.

    All nine retained jobs, the three positives with their duplicate-square and outside-container controls, were decided again here on 11 October 2026 by both maintained exact routes and equal their retained rows. A third exact route, half-extent containment and exact intersection area, decided the three with six controls each and held each retained file to its upstream bytes and its side to the README's print. No route here is the source's code, and the source ran none of them, so the replay is independently re-implemented. The 11 October review found no blocking defect.

    Each side was below the ceiling its case held, by 7.78e-05 at 155 (SQUISH's update, T-115), 2.91e-03 at 156 and 1.62e-03 at 211 (Daniel's exact optima, T-098), and at 155 is below Couzo's T-128 by 7.35e-05. On 11 October 2026 the case records adopted this entry as the house at all three counts, each case's reported and verified upper bounds moving together and each earlier house kept as history, with T-128 verified and not selected at 155; private-worker custody was closed in the same change (packing/devtools/house-custody-2026-10-11.json).

    Credit Ostashev (https://github.com/dostashev/square-packing) with the three packings and their certificates, the name he agreed to on the issue on 11 October 2026. The README says each was constructed from scratch, a V-shaped tilted band at a chosen angle with aligned corner blocks chosen by an integer program, no existing record geometry used, then re-hardened on a GPU with Nakajima's soft-to-rigid method, polished by the fixed-angle linear program it credits to this project, and solved to the exact optimum of its contact topology; its certificates follow Xu's construction.

    Measured pose by pose, none is a refinement of a credited packing: at 155 the squares pair one to one with SQUISH's (T-115) and Couzo's (T-128) only through the aligned corner blocks every packing of that family shares, and the band between them is at another angle, 50 squares turned by up to 27 degrees; at 156 and 211 no symmetry pairs the squares with the case's packing one to one.

    The source and the issue make no statement about AI assistance, and the issue omits the template's section on it. On 12 October 2026 the author stated on jlevy/squares#528 that AI agents wrote and ran his search, composition and verification code; the verification code it names is the one retained here, the same byte for byte in both releases, and whether the statement covers these three packings' search is asked (think-e59i).
    Significance
    Three new packings built from scratch, smaller finite construction sides at n=155, 156 and 211, 7.78e-05 to 2.91e-03 below the case ceilings and 7.35e-05 below the pending T-128 at 155, measured as no placement of the packings their cases hold or have pending; no lower bound or optimum.
    Novelty
    previously-published Present in an identified source
    Records

    n = 155n = 156n = 211registerevidence 1evidence 2

  • T-161 V3 C3 Couzo after Ostashev, Chaoweeraprasit, Fang, Daniel, Ellsworth, Levy · 2026-10-14 · n = 156, 176, 237, 271

    Exact rational certificates at 156, 176, 237 and 271 from Couzo

    Claim and records
    Claim
    Four complete rational source certificates report finite upper-bound improvements at the exact sides they state: s(156)≤12.979165853834276453965882038847, s(176)≤42253500388043689581217825957/3060154296728500000000000000, s(237)≤15.902947773658185869705573326239 and s(271)≤16.948992356451205603226618436627.

    The same release states s(338)≤18.906332809852093379991386331018, s(344)≤83284325592732658265440964873/4384829811311500000000000000, s(375)≤581837142778534347520704447657618356033117642159/29235669412085804585614997608579500000000000000, s(376)≤19.904949736498672043413871274032 and s(378)≤28547984384116369335179568707/1431512228978500000000000000, beyond the case corpus; the source register tracks those as beyond-horizon rows.

    All 27 retained jobs, the release's nine certificates with their duplicate-square and outside-container controls, were decided again here on 14 October 2026 by both maintained exact routes and equal their retained rows. A third exact route, half-extent containment and exact intersection area, decided the four certificates this entry cites with six controls each and held each retained file to its upstream bytes, fetched at the pin. No route here is the source's code; the author's runs of this repository's sqpack verifier are his and decide nothing here, so the replay is independently re-implemented. The 14 October review found no blocking defect.

    The author reports that all nine requested certificates, fetched at the pin and checked against the digests and row counts the issue lists, pass this repository's sqpack verify.py and Daniel's verify_cert.py, at the revisions the issue names, in exact rational arithmetic, in 4.52 and 5.56 seconds; that 156, 237, 271, 338 and 376 are exact optima from Daniel's exact contact solver; and that 176, 344, 375 and 378 are rational witnesses of their decimal packings with centres dilated by 1 + 1e-11, 1 + 1e-12, 1 + 1e-10 and 1 + 1e-12. Those statements, and the author's replay script and receipt, are the author's; no source program ran here.

    Credit Couzo (https://github.com/franciscouzo/square-packing), with the packings each started from, as the author asks: Ostashev's arrangements at 156 and 176, continued with the author's basin hopping and refinement and, at 176, through his web app; Chaoweeraprasit's SQUISH arrangements at 237 and 271, continued with the author's basin hopping and Daniel's fq refinement (237 improves the author's T-140 certificate).

    Beyond the case corpus, 344 continues Fang's 344 (issue 484) from the packing reported in issue 506, and 338, 375, 376 and 378 the author's L-border constructions of issue 506 (338 and 375 from his 303, itself from SQUISH's issue 401; 376 from his earlier 304; 378 from his 306), refined with Daniel's fq at 338 and 376 and basin hopping at 378; the latest step at 375 came through the author's browser web app with Ellsworth's search. Daniel's optimizer, exact contact solver and verifier, Ellsworth's refinement and search ideas, and this project's sqpack verifier were used.

    The author states that OpenAI Codex assisted the continuing search, the application work, the source audit, the verification orchestration and the request, that earlier search code and submissions were prepared with Claude Code, and that he directed the work.

    Measured pose by pose by that review, the 156 continues Ostashev's packing (T-149), the 237 continues the author's T-140 design and the 271 refines Chaoweeraprasit's SQUISH packing (T-151), each paired square for square; the 176 moves Ostashev's issue-562 arrangement and pairs with no placement of it.

    At 237 Polkovskyi's issue 593 (T-183) is smaller and held the case from 15 October 2026, and Couzo's T-190 has held it since 16 October 2026. At 156, 176 and 271 PR 574's certificates (T-174) are smaller, by 1.30e-19, 1.18e-02 and 1.69e-19, and were held for the owner from 15 October until the house rule of 16 October 2026 lifted the hold. Meanwhile this entry held the cases at 156 and 271, the smallest certificates there that the hold left in, and T-165, the author's re-solve of the 176, held 176. The adoption of 16 October 2026 (PR #657) made Polkovskyi's T-186, smaller than T-174, the house at all three.
    Significance
    Four continuations and refinements of earlier packings, 1.83e-06 to 5.22e-03 below their case ceilings, as T-128, T-130 and T-140 are; no lower bound or optimum.
    Novelty
    previously-published Present in an identified source
    Records

    n = 156n = 176n = 237n = 271registerevidence 1evidence 2

  • T-174 V3 C3 PingYou Ltd after Friedman, Ellsworth, Daniel, Xu, Barnett, Couzo, Ostashev, Chaoweeraprasit, Gupta, Fang, Polkovskyi, Levy · 2026-10-14 · 68 cases

    Tighter certificates at 68 counts from PingYou Ltd, of others' packings and its own

  • T-180 V0 C1 Hosono · 2026-10-14 · 264 cases

    Closed-form lower bound s(N)≥a(N) for every non-square N≥49, reported

  • T-186 V3 C3 Polkovskyi after Ostashev, Couzo, PingYou Ltd, Levy · 2026-10-15 · 12 cases

    Exact certificates at twelve counts from Polkovskyi, tightening the smallest reported there

Verification

upper: replayed here; lower: external proof (read here), audited here

formal lower differs from report

Rigidity

not rigid, numerically checked, numerical multiprecision

Evidence: E-translation-escape-not-rigid

Scope

Square 0 of the retained witness (witness id 1) translates 0.003211 along (1, 0) with the packing still valid, so the configuration admits a non-trivial feasible motion; 39 of its 156 squares do. Every constraint is exactly affine in the slide parameter, so the arithmetic carries no linearization error, but the coordinates are the witness's own finite-precision transcription: this settles the retained configuration, not the true optimum. Rigidity and optimality are independent, and this bears only on the former.

Regularized drawing

Regularized by the Squares Project with Daniel's regularizer (evand/square-packing, MIT), with the project's modifications: port of his coincidence placement (regularize_grid_slack/1) rather than his code, same-side exact re-solve (devtools.regularize_same_side). A drawing of T-186's packing at the witness's own side: a pure regularization, which proves no new bound, so not a result. The house is itself its source's regularization of T-174's packing (Polkovskyi after Ostashev, Couzo, PingYou Ltd, Levy), registered as T-186 for the upper bound its exact side proves.

Open questions
  • Priority: s(156) <= 12.98208269973811824, Casson's packing, larger than the reported side (Casson)
  • Priority: s(156) <= 12.982082698520427, the first of Couzo's packings for this count (Couzo)
  • Priority: Earlier house 12.982082698516893102076828502036 from [evand exact optima 2026-10-05], the case’s ceiling until 11 October 2026; its certificate and replay remain retained. (Couzo, Daniel)
  • Priority: Earlier house 12.9791726136444261 from [Ostashev records 2026-10-11], the case’s ceiling from 11 October 2026 until 15 October 2026; its certificate and replay remain retained. (Ostashev)
  • Priority: Earlier house 12.9791658538342765 from [Couzo certificates 2026-10-12], the case’s ceiling from 15 October 2026 until 16 October 2026; its certificate and replay remain retained. (Ostashev, Couzo)

s(156) — open

Hosono’s closed form, 14 October 2026. Hosono’s closed form (wand125, 13 October 2026, T-180) states s(N)≥a(N) for every non-square N≥49, from a measure of line segments on 34 intervals of the fractional part. At n=156, k=12 and interval 27 give a(156)=12.591233265143578179003501158359…, so the reported lower bound here is now s(156)≥12.591233265143, rounded down, above Nagamochi’s closed form, 12.53256259467. The source replayed its certificate with its own checker; no record of it has been replayed here, so the verified lower bound is unchanged. The source states that its search, certificates, checkers and text were produced with AI assistance (Claude and Codex), under the direction of and reviewed by Hosono.

House adoption, 16 October 2026. Polkovskyi’s tighter certificate of Couzo’s continuation of Ostashev’s n = 156 packing, after PingYou Ltd’s (T-186) is now this case’s house: its exact certificate proves s(156)≤12.97916585383427646, the reported and the verified upper bound, rounded outward from its exact side. The exact certificate side improves the previous verified exact side by about 1.30×10−19. The earlier ceiling, displayed outward as 12.9791658538342765 from Ostashev’s packing, improved by Couzo (T-161), applied until this adoption and stays retained as history (the certificate).

House adoption, 15 October 2026. Couzo’s continuation of Ostashev’s n = 156 packing (T-161) was this case’s house until 16 October 2026: its exact certificate proves s(156)≤12.9791658538342765, the reported and the verified upper bound, 6.76×10−6 below the ceiling the case held until then, 12.9791726136444261 from Ostashev’s packing (T-149), which stays retained as history (the certificate).

House adoption, 11 October 2026. Ostashev’s packing (T-149) was this case’s house until 15 October 2026: its exact certificate proves s(156)≤12.9791726136444261, the reported and the verified upper bound, 2.91×10−3 below the ceiling the case held until then, 12.982082698516893102076828502036 from Couzo’s packing, improved by Daniel (T-098), which stays retained as history (the certificate).

Open. Previously, the best known published packing, Couzo’s at Daniel’s exact optimum (T-098), gives s(156)≤12.9820826985168931021…, and the strongest lower bound independently verified here is 12.510412 from Karakuş’s general theorem, leaving a gap of 0.4717. General bound: s(N) >= 1/2 + sqrt(N - floor(sqrt(N)) + 1/4).

The exact optimum

Daniel’s square-packing published on 5 October 2026 an exact rational certificate of this packing at its exact optimum (T-098): the same 156 squares in a square of side 12.9820826985168931021…, 3.5×10−12 below the side Couzo prints. Square for square, its pose lies within 5.0×10−12 of the binary64 pose the atlas pictures for this count. The known-best witness this record lists is that binary64 pose, posed at its finder’s larger side; the side above is witnessed by the certificate itself. Daniel’s solver moves the binary64 pose to a nearby exact KKT point of the problem of minimizing the side under non-overlap, computed at 80 digits, and rounds it outward to rationals, each square a rational centre and a rational t=tan(θ/2).

This repository decides the certificate exactly. Converted without rounding, every pair and every wall is decided over ℚ twice, by sqpack’s exact separating-axis test and by an independent checker that shares no code with it, and the source’s own two checkers, run here as retained, accept it as well (receipts). That proves s(156)≤12.9820826985168931021…, the verified upper bound until 11 October 2026; it says nothing about optimality. The source reports the exact point as a KKT local minimum: multipliers that keep it in equilibrium, a reduced Hessian positive definite once its exact flat motions are set aside (its per-count report), and no first-order descent across corner-to-corner contacts, each computed numerically at that point; none of that is verified here, and it bears on this packing alone, not on s(156). On jlevy/squares#375 its author wrote that the solver, its checkers and the batch “were written with Claude (Anthropic) as a coding and research agent, directed and reviewed by me.”

The packing

Couzo’s square-packing reports a packing of side 12.982082698520427 for this count, dated 26 September 2026 and unchanged when this record retained the repository on 27 September 2026 (T-056). The repository names no method and no tolerance, and itself states no AI assistance; its author said on issue #227 that he found the 102 and 103 packings “with the help of Claude”.

This repository certifies it exactly. The retained decimal pose rounds to an exact rational packing at centre dilation 1, of side 12.9820826985204274, 4.000×10−16 above the printed side, and every pair and every wall is decided over ℚ twice, by the promotion’s exact separating-axis test and by an independent checker that shares no code with it (receipt). That proves s(156)≤12.982082698520428, which was the verified upper bound until Daniel’s exact optimum above replaced it; it says nothing about optimality. Interval arithmetic on the printed pose itself, with each angle’s true cosine and sine and no rational rounding, decides every pair and wall again and gives the same bound (interval route).

Casson’s square-packing, dated 23 September 2026 and made with the help of Claude as its README says, reports a packing of side 12.98208269973811824 for this count, larger than Couzo’s by 1.21769124×10−9. Casson’s is the earlier of the two by the timestamps this record’s priority notes keep: Couzo’s first packing for this count, of side 12.982082698520427, is dated 26 September 2026. The record states both dates and infers nothing about whether either packing derives from the other.

The previous best known packing

Before this intake the best known packing was the Kingbird catalogue’s, of side 12.98219172354800.

Found by Arslanov, Mustafin and Shangitbayev in 2019. Improved by Ellsworth in December 2024. Improved by Cantrell in March 2025. Improved by Ellsworth in January 2026, via simulated annealing.

The lower bound

The strongest lower bound independently verified in this record is Karakuş’s general bound, which applies to every nonsquare N≥8:

s(N)≥12+N−⌊N⌋+14

Correction, 2 October 2026. Until that date the verified lower bound here was Nagamochi’s general closed form, s(N)≥min(⌈N⌉,N−2⌊N⌋+1+1), which is stronger at this n and is now recorded as a reported bound. Its published proof rests on Nagamochi’s Lemma 1, which Karakuş showed false; nothing is disproved, and no packing beating it is known (review of 2 October 2026). This register had recorded that proof as verified, its own error, logged as defect D-516.

Source-reported bounds are recorded separately from this independently verified theorem.

Verification Code

The programs behind this case’s verified bounds, by their evidence. The code column says how the code that ran stands to the code its producer used. VERIFIERS.md says what each program is and whose it is.

bound evidence run code programs
verified lower E-karakus-strip-lower a published proof no code no verification code
verified lower E-karakus-strip-measure-interval audited here independent V-check-karakus-strip-measure (first-party)
verified upper E-mishapolk-70a033f-exact-feasibility replayed here independent V-sqpack-verify, V-check-rational-witness-independent (first-party); V-evand-arrangement-receipts, V-upper-bound-reports, V-evand-exact-certificates (first-party, premises)

Daniil Ostashev’s certificate (T-149)

Ostashev’s packing, reported on jlevy/squares#501, at an exact rational side, displayed upward as 12.9791726136444261 (T-149). The certificate gives a rational side and, for each of the 156 unit squares, a rational centre and the tangent of its half-angle; the retained packet holds it with the complete native jobs that decided it.

Both maintained exact routes decided it here, sqpack’s exact separating-axis verifier and the independent rational corner checker, with its duplicate-square and outside-container controls, and a third exact route, half-extent containment and exact intersection area, decided it again. No route here is the source’s code, so the replay is independently re-implemented. The review of 11 October 2026 accepted the replay for finite feasibility. That proves s(156)≤12.9791726136444261, the verified upper bound until 15 October 2026: confirmed, independently re-implemented. It says nothing about optimality, rigidity or a local minimum.

The source states nothing about AI assistance.

The house it replaces, 12.982082698516893102076828502036 from Couzo’s packing, improved by Daniel (T-098), stays retained with its own replay as history.

Francisco Couzo’s certificate (T-161)

Couzo’s continuation of Ostashev’s n = 156 packing, reported on jlevy/squares#561, at exact side 12979165853834276453965882038847/1000000000000000000000000000000, displayed upward as 12.9791658538342765 (T-161). The certificate gives a rational side and, for each of the 156 unit squares, a rational centre and the tangent of its half-angle; the retained packet holds it with the complete native jobs that decided it.

Both maintained exact routes decided it here, sqpack’s exact separating-axis verifier and the independent rational corner checker, with its duplicate-square and outside-container controls, and a third exact route, half-extent containment and exact intersection area, decided it again. One maintained route is the verifier the source ran; the independent rational corner checker and the third route are independently re-implemented. The review of 14 October 2026 accepted the replay for finite feasibility. That proves s(156)≤12.9791658538342765, the verified upper bound until 16 October 2026: confirmed, independently re-implemented. It says nothing about optimality, rigidity or a local minimum.

The author states that OpenAI Codex assisted the continuing search, the application work, the source audit, the verification orchestration and the request, that earlier search code and submissions were prepared with Claude Code, and that he directed the work.

The house it replaces, 12.9791726136444261 from Ostashev’s packing (T-149), stays retained with its own replay as history. T-174 at 12.9791658538342765, 1.30×10−19 below this house, is confirmed here and accepted by the review of 14 October 2026. From 15 October 2026 until the owner’s house rule of 16 October 2026 lifted the hold, PR #574’s houses were held for the owner, since their witnesses would add about 18.5 MB to a checkout and their custody inputs about 5.8 MB to every worker’s snapshot.

Mykhailo Polkovskyi’s certificate (T-186)

Polkovskyi’s tighter certificate of Couzo’s continuation of Ostashev’s n = 156 packing, after PingYou Ltd’s, reported in his repository on 14 October 2026, with no issue, at an exact rational side, displayed upward as 12.97916585383427646 (T-186). The certificate gives a rational side and, for each of the 156 unit squares, a rational centre and the tangent of its half-angle; the retained packet holds it with the complete native jobs that decided it.

Both maintained exact routes decided it here, sqpack’s exact separating-axis verifier and the independent rational corner checker, with its duplicate-square and outside-container controls, and a third exact route, half-extent containment and exact intersection area, decided it again. No route here is the source’s code, so the replay is independently re-implemented. The review of 16 October 2026 accepted the replay for finite feasibility. That proves s(156)≤12.97916585383427646, the verified upper bound: confirmed, independently re-implemented. It says nothing about optimality, rigidity or a local minimum.

The certificate is Polkovskyi’s tightening of the packing T-174 records, measured here pose by pose as that packing (T-186’s regularizations), so the packing keeps its finder’s credit and Polkovskyi is credited with the certificate.

The commit makes no statement about AI assistance; the author’s issue 593 discloses Gemini assistance with solver scripting, precision checks and formatting.

The house it replaces, 12.9791658538342765 from Ostashev’s packing, improved by Couzo (T-161), stays retained with its own replay as history. The other certificates confirmed here at this count, T-174 at 12.9791658538342765 and T-149 at 12.9791726136444261, stay verified and are not selected.