What Adam Is Reading
Claude-Shaped Science
A Harvard physicist pointed one AI model at the scientific literature for three months. It came back with 36 papers, exact answers, and no taste. The taste turned out to be the point.
AI Impact· Single source review· 9 sources plus 36 preprints· October 2026

Science ran one of the more useful AI stories of the year this week. It describes a method that has already produced results, and it quotes collaborators in ecology, evolutionary biology, linguistics and data science who say on the record what worked and what did not.

The physicist is Matthew Schwartz of Harvard, a visiting researcher at Anthropic. Last December he treated Claude as a graduate student. With heavy hand holding it wrote a reasonable physics paper in two weeks. Asked for something as ambitious as reinventing quantum mechanics, it was not ready. So he stopped asking the model to act like a scientist and played to what it does well, which is write code and read everything.

That shift produced BootLoops, a toolkit of exact calculation programs (rational arithmetic, proven error bounds, verified closed forms) that the model runs and extends. It began with one class of integral from particle physics. Claude found thirty of them in the literature and solved all thirty, fifteen for the first time. Then it went looking for the same mathematics elsewhere and kept finding it. In Schwartz's words, many fields have problems that a technique from mathematics, physics or computer science "would solve outright if anyone knew it existed."

That is the cross cutting value. A biologist building evolutionary trees, a statistician comparing mixture models and a physicist computing particle collisions turn out to share integrals. A Medicare rating rule turns out to share a 1958 clustering problem with the cartographers who shade maps. No human reads widely enough to see all of those connections. As Georgia Channing of Hugging Face told Science, a physicist will not spend six months reading linguistics on the chance it helps. The model will, in an afternoon. The output so far is 36 manuscripts across nine broad areas in about three months.

The article earns its keep by also reporting the limits. The model could say what it was able to calculate. It could not say what scientists would care about. The footnotes are worth reading too, and one of them is about dialysis.

Disclosures. BootLoops runs on Claude. Schwartz is a visiting researcher at Anthropic, though BootLoops is his project and not Anthropic's. This piece was researched and drafted with Claude. I am a nephrologist and work in dialysis, an industry whose facilities carry the patient experience stars discussed below. Weigh accordingly.
36
manuscripts in about three months, most still drafts
104 / 123
Medicare Advantage cut point computations that miss their own stated optimum
26%
of dialysis facility survey stars that move under the exact answer

The Fields and the Preprints

Here are the nine areas as the project site groups them, with a link to every manuscript that has been posted. Titles marked summary only are still in preparation, so the link goes to the author's summary page. Titles with no link have not been posted at all. None of these papers has been peer reviewed. The full catalog is on the BootLoops manuscripts page.


What the Coverage Claims
1
36 preprints across 22 fields in 3 months
What actually happened

The project site lists 36 manuscripts and groups them into nine broad areas. Schwartz's own announcement counts 18 fields and 19 coauthors over roughly three months.

What the headline inflated

"22 fields" is the magazine's count, not the author's. More important, these are preprints and drafts. Several are listed as in preparation, and the site warns that many have not been fully checked by humans. Peer review has not happened yet. The work is real. The tally is generous.

Mostly Solid
2
Spotting, and precisely solving, problems across fields
What actually happened

This is the strongest claim and the best supported. Closed forms must match independent numerical evaluations to thirty decimal places at held out points. Evidence integrals run in exact rational arithmetic, cross checked with two disjoint sets of primes. The origin story holds up. Thirty elliptic Feynman integrals computed end to end, fifteen of them never computed before. In phylogenetics, two candidate trees for humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans come out exactly tied in probability, something estimation could never settle.

The fine print

Schwartz is careful here, more careful than the coverage. His own paper notes that agreement to thirty digits is numerical evidence, not a symbolic proof. "Precisely" is fair. "Proven" would be a different word.

Solid
3
Exact cut points would shift about $1 billion in Medicare bonuses
What actually happened

This is the paper a healthcare reader should open. The Medicare Advantage regulation says two things. Section 422.162(a) says star levels go to the clusters that "minimize the within-cluster sum of squares." Section 422.166(a)(2)(i) says to find them with hierarchical clustering and mean resampling. CMS uses Ward's method, which is a heuristic and can stop short of that minimum. For scores on a single line, the exact answer has been computable since Walter Fisher's dynamic program in 1958 (the same math cartographers use to shade maps). Of 123 cut point computations for 2024 through 2026, 104 miss the minimum. Rescoring changes 9,809 of 47,752 contract measure stars, about one in five.

What the headline compressed

The billion is gross, not net. It is $0.9 to $1.4 billion over payment years 2025 to 2027, priced on a $400 to $600 per enrollee reference band, from 34 contract years that cross the 4.0 bonus line in both directions (16 up, 18 down). One contract year accounts for 59 percent of the enrollment in the estimate, and its rating sits 0.03 above a rounding edge. CMS does not publish its inputs, so the score lists are reconstructions. The paper attributes no error to CMS, takes no side on which sentence of the regulation controls, and lists no health policy coauthor. That last point matters with active litigation over star ratings (SCAN and Alignment both filed new suits in July 2026).

Mostly Solid
4
Neutral biodiversity theory "holds that many genetic variations… are due to randomness"
What actually happened

Hubbell's neutral theory of biodiversity is about species, not genes. It treats every tree species as ecologically equivalent, so a forest's composition drifts by birth, death and migration. The BootLoops result was that on Barro Colorado Island in Panama the species mix changes about 4.5 times faster than neutral theory predicts. The ecologist James O'Dwyer called the results solid and interesting, and unlikely to move the field much.

What the article got wrong

Science described Kimura's neutral theory of molecular evolution, a cousin with the same adjective. In a story about AI crossing disciplines, the human reporters crossed two fields that share a word.

Embellished
5
It lacked research taste
What actually happened

This is the honest center of the story, and Schwartz says it more bluntly than the magazine. In his announcement he describes a model that overclaims, declares itself done too early and misjudges timelines. Automated checks were not trustworthy, so he looked at the plots himself. He calls his role "Claude handler." On colleagues' advice he withheld results that were insufficiently validated. On a Voynich manuscript forum, readers called his decipherment paper slop. Science adds that the approach favors older, highly cited problems over new ones, which could narrow what science explores.

What it means

His own line is the summary. "Claude can find Claude-shaped problems, but there are thousands, perhaps millions, of them." The bottleneck moved from computing the answer to choosing the question.

Solid

The Footnote About Dialysis

Buried in the star ratings paper is a result Science did not mention. The in-center hemodialysis CAHPS survey gives patient experience stars on Care Compare to 2,594 facilities across six measures. CMS clusters those scores with the same Ward's method. Here the inputs are public, and running Ward's method on the April 2026 file reproduces CMS's published groupings (five exactly, the sixth up to ties). So any gap between CMS and the optimum belongs entirely to the algorithm.

None of the six published groupings is optimal. Regrouping moves 4,061 of 15,564 facility measure stars, about one in four. On every measure the movement runs one way only.

ICH CAHPS measure (April 2026)Facilities that moveDirection
Nephrologists' communication and caring1,042Up one star
Rating of the nephrologist1,042Down one star
Rating of the dialysis center staff904Up one star
Rating of the dialysis facility750Up one star
Providing information to patients240Up one star
Quality of dialysis center care and operations83Up one star
2,594 facilities rated. Source: Schwartz, "Stars misaligned," Appendix A, Figure A2.

The two nephrologist measures move the same number of facilities in opposite directions. The paper reports separate sums of squares for each, so they are distinct calculations. It is still the kind of coincidence worth confirming with the author.

The underlying survey scores do feed the ESRD Quality Incentive Program, but QIP grades them against achievement and improvement thresholds and never uses these star bins. So the stars do not change payment. They change what a patient sees when choosing where to spend twelve hours a week. That is a smaller stake than a Medicare Advantage bonus and a more personal one. It is also the measure that grades people like me.

Why Ward's method? Grouping data into clusters is computationally hard in many dimensions, so statistical software offers heuristics, and Ward's method is the standard one. Star scores sit on a line, where the problem is easy and has been solved since 1958. The rule's authors reached for the general tool when the specific one was already in the drawer. That is the BootLoops thesis in miniature.
So What

BootLoops is less a robot scientist than a very fast librarian with a very good calculator. It finds the old answer to your new problem and computes it exactly. Deciding which problems deserve an answer is still our job. For now, compute is cheap and taste is scarce.

All 36 papers are preprints or drafts, and none has completed peer review. The Medicare and dialysis figures come from a single author preliminary paper with a public replication package. Disclosures appear near the top of this piece.

Sources

News: "Problems in 22 scientific fields had solutions hiding in plain sight. An AI has found them." Science, October 2026. science.org

Announcement: Schwartz MD. "Claude-shaped science." Anthropic, 1 October 2026. anthropic.com

Methods paper: Schwartz MD. "BootLoops: an LLM-driven toolkit for exact quantitative science." arXiv:2610.02286, 2026. arxiv.org

Project site: BootLoops, "A toolkit for exact quantitative science." bootloops.ai

Manuscript list: BootLoops, "The manuscripts." bootloops.ai/papers

Star ratings: Schwartz MD. "Stars misaligned: Medicare star ratings and the exact optimum of their clustering criterion." Preliminary version, 2026. PDF · summary

Replication package: bootloops-papers/healthstars v1.0. github.com · Zenodo

Regulation: 42 CFR 422.162 and 422.166, Medicare Advantage Quality Rating System. ecfr.gov

The 1958 answer: Fisher WD. "On grouping for maximum homogeneity." J Am Stat Assoc 53 (1958) 789.