Randomized trial certifies central configurations in a four-body problem, indicating exhaustive verification of results.
We give the first interval-arithmetic–certified enumeration of the planar central configurations of the Newtonian four-body problem for the one-parameter mass family (1,1,1,μ). At seven values of μ spanning a thirty-fold range, together with two further values bracketing the symmetry-breaking window about μ=1, we certify the count exactly: 38 outside that window and 50 inside it, counted as labelled configurations modulo translation, rotation and scaling. The numbers themselves are not new — they appear in Simó's 1978 numerical survey and are tabulated by Albouy; the full count-versus-mass curve is given numerically by Rusu and Santoprete, who state explicitly that they are "unable to prove" it. What is new is the proof of exhaustiveness: each count is obtained by a Krawczyk interval-Newton branch-and-bound over a search box that we prove contains every central configuration of the given masses, so no configuration can have been missed. Three ingredients make this possible. First, a formulation in Cartesian positions in which the multiplier λ is eliminated as U/I; the residual system is then four equations in four unknowns, and we show that its zero set coincides exactly with the set of central configurations, the obstruction being a linear system whose determinant is independent of the configuration. Second, an explicit a priori bound D ≤ κ(m)·d on the ratio of largest to smallest mutual distance, derived from a sub-cluster virial identity; the literature supplies compactness but no usable constant. Third, the observation that the residual map is not proper, so that a bounded domain is a necessity rather than a convenience. We also measure the cost of certification near a degeneracy, giving a second and independent measurement of the certification-cost law χ introduced in a companion paper (Lovecký 2026, doi:10.5281/zenodo.21505198). We derive χ ≈ log₂(1/gap) from the Krawczyk contraction condition and confirm it at a corank-one fold (1.18 measured); at the corank-two degeneracy of Palmore we measure 1.56, which the derivation does not explain, and we report the discrepancy rather than fit it. Reproducibility. Every certified count is emitted as a disposition-tree certificate whose verifier re-derives the count leaf by leaf and shares no code with the search; the one unverified premise (the a priori domain bound) is printed on every run. The attached artifact snapshot (code license Apache-2.0) reproduces the counts: cargo test --release runs the suite, and the per-mass certificate summaries carry the SHA-256 of each disposition tree. Methodology disclosure. The results were produced using an agentic AI system directed and adjudicated by the author, under a methodology of the author's design: adversarial review of every derivation and a numeral-tracing gate on the manuscript. Section 6 documents it, including the five earlier claims the reviews refuted and this paper corrects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Radoslav Lovecky (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: