Sources we considered, with review status and reasons.
3070 recorded entries · 652 awaiting detailed review · 584 excluded · 672 on hold · 3 publisher withdrawals · 1159 related to curated records.
Suggest a missing contribution or correction.
See omissions and decisions reviewed against public discussion.
Entries without a recorded subject appear only under All subjects. Coverage totals describe all subjects.
1911 matching entries · Page 11 of 39
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
The original Laplacian paper presents the remaining cases and a computer-assisted proof, but gives no documented central AI contribution.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
The source documents agent formalization and candidate lemmas but does not identify a retained central AI-origin mathematical idea.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
The claimed proof is in a Zenodo manuscript that was not retrievable. The secondary record reports model collaboration on several proof components, but its exact attribution and theorem need primary review.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-19
Xu says ChatGPT assisted development of both the counterexample and proof strategy, but does not say who supplied the decisive graph or strategy; central AI origin remains unclear.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The paper attributes auxiliary arguments, proof expansion and consistency checks to ChatGPT Astra but does not identify a central AI-origin proof step for the Tachikawa implication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The linked confinement-certificate project requires a source-level comparison with prior art; no retained AI-originated resolution of Mahler’s generalized problem is yet established.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
The secondary record quotes an AI author line and model-produced proof, but the original Simonelli PDF was inaccessible; the statement, proof certificates and human checking must be read directly.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
Registry records a withdrawal, dispute, or claim issue. Hold publication pending review of the primary notice and exact affected scope.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
Registry records a withdrawal, dispute, or claim issue. Hold publication pending review of the primary notice and exact affected scope.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
The linked branch could not be fetched; the exact formal statement and AI-origin account remain unreadable.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The named revision of the original mortality repository was not readable here; the registry account of AI-authored bounds needs confirmation from its own manuscript or provenance.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The original Erdős problem and proof-claims discussion were inaccessible, so the claim, dispute, and central AI work cannot be assessed from the source.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The original paper says Claude and Codex implemented the authors’ adaptation ideas, handled bookkeeping, drafted text, and formalized the proof. It credits the core mathematical adaptation to the human authors, so no central AI-origin contribution is documented.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The reported model proof may qualify, but the released theorem and formal check could not yet be matched to the claimed binary and generalized results.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The source explicitly retains human ideas, proof architecture and simplification; isolate any central AI-origin argument beyond iteration and technical assistance.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18
The linked repository tree and CI run could not be read here, so neither the finite maxima nor central AI origin can be checked from the original artifacts.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The primary paper and conditional Lean theorem are clear, but the current VibeMathed record does not document who supplied the central mathematical idea; model naming alone is insufficient for inclusion.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18
The paper reports AI help with arguments and computations but does not attribute the eventual-sign-alternation counterexample or its key construction to a model.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Kolosov’s repository documents an exact certificate and says ChatGPT assisted exploration, programming and manuscript preparation, but does not establish who found the retained 44-vertex object.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The source summary quotes ChatGPT use for optimization search and proof development, but the underlying manuscript’s §5 was not read to establish which retained code was model-found.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The source documents AI ideation and Lean proof work, but does not identify whether AI supplied the central weighted-spectral proof idea.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
The 2026 Zenodo deposits carrying the proposed answers were inaccessible; the 2018 Banakh paper states background problems, not these new claims.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The Zenodo originals were not readable here; an index summarizes a stronger stability classification but has no attached process record establishing model-origin work.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The Axiom Math paper credits Stadlmann with the analytic ideas and describes AxiomProver as autonomously formalizing the deduction from natural-language specifications while major analytic and variational inputs remain hypotheses. That documented AI role is proof formalization, not a central new mathematical idea for H1 ≤ 212.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Metadata screened. Requires original-source review of the specific contribution, baseline and central AI work, with separate AI involvement, technical verification, human understanding and importance ratings before publication.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-27
The new paper says its proof was found with GPT-5.6 Sol but does not isolate the model-originated step or distinguish it from the earlier related human papers.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The paper proves infinite Saxl-graph counterexample families, but its accessible primary text does not document a central AI role.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The public announcement says H1 ≤ 236 was obtained “with the help of AI” from Stadlmann’s work, but provides no manuscript or division of mathematical labor.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The original paper on measures on partial orders has no identifiable AI-origin disclosure in the available HTML, so the mathematical role of any model remains unresolved.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The linked release and preprint need a provenance check before AI-centered work on the sharp matroid threshold can be established.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The repository disclosure lists AI exploration, drafting and checks under author direction, without attributing an individual central proof step to a model.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The original paper says GPT-5.5 was used solely to generate code for computer-assisted Section 4; the mathematical ideas and proofs were developed independently by the authors from earlier human work.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The AI disclosure lists research and proof development, but does not identify which central construction, lower bound, or proof idea came from the model.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
A third-party check that the formal statements faithfully encode the intended informal Bugeaud claims is explicitly absent; the notes and Lean statements diverge on higher degree.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The model supplied an incomplete starting candidate; the source does not establish a retained central AI-origin idea after the authors’ essential construction and repair.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The available account credits human authors with the central Fourier ideas and does not identify a separate model-origin mathematical contribution.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z
The specialist primary curve records credit Alpöge and Howell; the model’s precise retained construction or search idea is supplied only broadly by secondary reporting.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18
The cited Erdős forum thread was inaccessible and the older arXiv paper is a baseline; the newer affine-case proof and AI-origin disclosure need inspection.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The registry quotes a model-centered disclosure, but the linked original manuscript and verification directory could not be read here; the interval certificate is also unavailable.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The reported default-mode computation does not rigorously establish the decisive inequality scl(r)>1/2; an exact certificate or proof is still needed.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Discovery metadata attribution: What AI Found, CC BY 4.0 · VibeMathed contributors, editorial layer CC BY 4.0. AIProofWatch supplies the screening decisions.
Allow optional Google Analytics to help improve AIProofWatch? Privacy details.
