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 18 of 39
The paper states the coordinatewise information theorem, but the accessible original manuscript does not document AI's role; central AI origin cannot be established from the queued link.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The directory reports a Lean-verified solution of Erdős #659 and credits an AI-contributions wiki, but its sole listed primary problem record was inaccessible and gives no reviewable first-person provenance here.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The cited Erdős problem page was unavailable, leaving the original AI and proof account unverified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The Erdős problem record was inaccessible (403); the aggregator reports an AI-discovered Lean proof but does not establish the original discovery account.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The community record claims an AI-found Lean-checked counterexample to #397, but the original Erdős page returned 403 and no primary artifact establishes which model supplied it.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
A secondary index calls #729 AI-discovered and Lean-verified, but Tao’s accessible AI-contributions record shows only a related-results entry for #729; the original Erdős page was unavailable. The source and scope of the claimed resolution remain unclear.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The original Problem 871 page could not be read here; the registry’s model attribution is not a substitute for the original proof disclosure.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Retain the generated permutations/hypercube examples. Human recognition of digitwise structure and the general theorem are later work.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18
The AI-generated construction independently rediscovered a result already established by an earlier human counterexample.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z
The original Erdős problem page returned 403 and no readable primary solution or AI disclosure was available for this entry.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The paper thanks ChatGPT for discussion, while describing the diameter deformation and interpolation as the author’s construction. The content of the model discussion is not specified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Tao’s first-person history says Aristotle reproved a result already in the literature, AlphaEvolve found small examples, and the final exact formula followed human construction and earlier papers. A new central AI mathematical contribution to this specific monotonic-subsequence claim is not yet established.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The paper credits GPT-5 with C++ code generation, especially low-level optimization; the sieve and mathematical approach are presented as the author's.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Tao says AI-assisted experiments suggested some results, while all arguments were human-generated. The disclosure does not identify whether a retained result or construction came from AI.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The accessible original paper states the fixed-point result, but no original AI-use account establishing central model work was found.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The authors attribute the counterexample and decisive argument to human work; ChatGPT wrote the Lean formalization after the proof was known. They report that it independently proved a stated Proposition 20 during formalization, but that proposition is a prior Hall result, not the new counterexample. No central new mathematical idea is credited to AI.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The original arXiv record is withdrawn; the author says AI-generated proofs included incorrect ones without identifying which of the 22 claims survive.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
Schwartz credits ChatGPT with independently finding an expression for a denominator used near the end of the proof, amid broader discussion and formatting help. Its importance to the main result is unclear.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-17 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The two-locus recursion denominator bound needs a contribution-specific AI-origin account and comparison with the established sampling recursion; generic repository-wide model credit is insufficient.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The prespecified panmixia betting test needs exact mathematical AI attribution, size/power hypotheses and the prior statistical baseline; repository-wide model credit alone does not establish them.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The fractional split-graph packing bound sharpens the linear term, with a formalized finite LP reduction. The source describes proofs from the author’s earlier article; origin of the retained new reduction remains to be allocated.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The split-graph clique-partition bound reuses the author’s earlier Lean freeze. Separate central AI origin of the mathematical bound from porting and package verification.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The chordal fractional triangle-cover extremizers have precise finite claims and checked formalization. Attribution of the new extremal construction versus the author’s earlier paper remains unresolved.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The linked-site identifiability theorem needs an exact model-origin allocation and comparison with prior genealogy identifiability; the repository credits both humans and models without allocating this result.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned disclosure says the owner supplied the mathematical construction and its earlier automation history was not supplied. Codex audits, optimization and formalization do not establish central AI origin of the retained Lorentz counterexamples.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The spectral-isometry disclosure identifies AI assistance with formalization, verification and review, while the manuscript was human-written. Central AI origin of a retained new mathematical argument is not established by this source.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The CHSH package transfers established constants through Halmos dilation. The source distinguishes its formalization from the known parallelogram bound; no new central-AI mathematical discovery is established.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The primary package was screened, but the retained novel claim, central AI origin and exact checking correspondence are not yet established.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The eight-vertex probability law and sharp spider characterization have reported complete mechanical checks. The source leaves originality and priority unresolved, and the retained central AI contribution still needs an exact provenance assessment.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The Steiner-bundle project reports natural cohomology in all twists and a geometric Lean endpoint. Its README does not allocate a retained central mathematical idea to AI.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The updated Steklov-isospectral project preserves the earlier pending lead. Exact central AI attribution, comparison with earlier domain constructions and statement correspondence remain unresolved.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
A discrete Hodge theorem is proved for a finite primitive-step computational-path presentation, with Codex proofs. The relation to established finite cochain/Hodge theory and the precise novel contribution remain unresolved.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The pinned source formalizes established human mathematics or an existing algorithm. No distinct central-AI mathematical discovery is identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
The primary package was screened, but the retained novel claim, central AI origin and exact checking correspondence are not yet established.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-29 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-29T07:22:18.411Z
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.
