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 20 of 39
Both selected inequalities are already attributed to rickyc’s June/July community proof, including the stronger valuation bound. An independently written AI proof/formalization does not establish a distinct advance over the known human result; finite searches are not a new universal theorem.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-24 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-24T07:28:43.626Z
Primary preprint and companion, six exact selected declarations and successful Lean/NanoDa checking report were read. Central work is certificate/absorber construction for the stated graph-level type families. The disclosure says AI explored and developed proofs beyond transcription, but does not allocate a specific retained new construction sufficiently to distinguish it from human mathematical direction and earlier absorption work. Do not count it as another Nash–Williams discovery. Con-ron declined for capacity; Lean/NanoDa passed.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-24 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-24T07:28:43.626Z
The source attributes the paper to Xiang and says the agent followed its proof section by section. Generalized-spectrum formalization, kernel checks and human statement review do not establish central AI origin of the mathematical theorem.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-24 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-24T07:28:43.626Z
Known temporal-clique spanner results supplied by human papers are formalized. The first development part was human-written; the second uses directed AI assistance and source proofs. No distinct AI-origin theorem established.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-24 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-24T07:28:43.626Z
The author set the theorem statements and threat model; models mostly wrote formal proofs of the 2022 obfuscation paper with errata. Any new corrected statement must be isolated from the supplied human proof and its structural security assumptions before eligibility can be established.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-24 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-24T07:28:43.626Z
Agents were tasked to formalize specified lemmas of Vorobev’s paper and Tahara’s earlier results. Exact exponent-three/cyclic-cube/finite-2-group assumptions were read; the general Kourovka inclusion remains open. No central new AI argument identified.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-24 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-24T07:28:43.626Z
Classical Graham–Pollak theorem, with Tverberg’s proof plan supplied to Aristotle. No distinct central-AI mathematical advance.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-24 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-24T07:28:43.626Z
Formalizes de Rijk–van Winden’s supplied planar-front stability proof, with uniqueness omitted. AI coding assistance and author-verified status alone do not establish a central AI mathematical contribution.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-24 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-24T07:28:43.626Z
Human-authored deformation proof of classical multiplicative-basis/standardness theorems is formalized by agents. The mathematics is described as developed with AI assistance, without source-specific allocation of a central retained argument; no inclusion inferred from the large formalization.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-24 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-24T07:28:43.626Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
Exact carry/moment criteria are distinct from the unauthenticated large computed denominator exclusions. No source-specific central AI mathematical contribution is established by the packaging disclosure.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
Retain coprimality, strict rational-base threshold and the exclusion of 3/2. The selected theorem does not include later all-rank Hankel claims. General AI formalization disclosure does not isolate central AI origin.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
Infinite kernel rank is not irrationality of the running-LCM sum. Earlier companion entries and unit-determinant extensions must remain separate; central AI mathematical origin is unestablished.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
Exact sparse correction theorem read; the prime-gap countermodel and primality are outside it. General AI formalization disclosure does not establish the origin of the central rationalization construction.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
Exact cubic-rate and positivity hypotheses read. AI disclosure identifies formalization, packaging and exposition, without allocating the central new irrationality argument. This does not resolve unrestricted Erdős243.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The author fixes the model-set dimension targets; agents draft and repair proofs. The new dimension formula and its known inflation examples need contribution-specific allocation of the central idea and comparison with the cited model-set literature. Do not infer theoretical-physics discovery from cut-and-project terminology.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The near-circular ellipse construction is explicitly described as human-directed mathematics with AI-assisted formalization. Its noncrossing ratio bound and exact-real algorithm are not evidence of central AI discovery.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The reviewed pinned statements formalize the named earlier human theorem or supplied human argument. The exact hypothesis and selected scope were read; no distinct central AI mathematical contribution was established by this formalization. Registry admission and kernel checking do not establish eligibility.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The fixed-force torus theorem has exact same-witness all-exponent regularity and source-reported Lean checks. The human authors supplied a private proof with ChatGPT assistance; Aristotle/Codex formalized it. Central AI origin of a distinct retained analytical construction is not established, and the private manuscript was not reviewed.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-23 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-23T08:28:30.727Z
The full versioned record and pinned challenge concern a known human theorem, earlier human argument or selected partial formalization. AI transcription, proof completion under a supplied argument or checking alone does not qualify as a new central AI contribution. This decision is about the reviewed formalization, not a refutation of the mathematics.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
Full registry record and pinned challenge checked. Separate companion controller/streaming encodings or Erdős257/269 kernel extensions from prior related statements. Contribution-specific central AI origin, earlier human source and distinct mathematical advance remain unresolved; model proof development alone is insufficient.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
Exact pinned statement and provenance read. Human manuscript/prior argument and agent proof-slice, formalization, certificate or packaging roles do not yet isolate a central AI mathematical idea for the retained group, graph, embedded-algorithm or algebraic theorem. No automatic inclusion from complete Lean checking.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
Exact pinned statement and provenance read. Human manuscript/prior argument and agent proof-slice, formalization, certificate or packaging roles do not yet isolate a central AI mathematical idea for the retained group, graph, embedded-algorithm or algebraic theorem. No automatic inclusion from complete Lean checking.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
The pinned manuscript proves isolated global periodic orbits, an all-degree real-coefficient bound and a rational degree-seven example. Improvements are only for degrees 6–9 against the stated n−2 baseline. Metadata says AI-assisted development but does not isolate who supplied the new sextic construction and degree-raising idea; central AI origin remains unresolved. Distinct from the existing quintic upper bound.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
The full versioned record and pinned challenge concern a known human theorem, earlier human argument or selected partial formalization. AI transcription, proof completion under a supplied argument or checking alone does not qualify as a new central AI contribution. This decision is about the reviewed formalization, not a refutation of the mathematics.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
Exact pinned statement and provenance read. Human manuscript/prior argument and agent proof-slice, formalization, certificate or packaging roles do not yet isolate a central AI mathematical idea for the retained group, graph, embedded-algorithm or algebraic theorem. No automatic inclusion from complete Lean checking.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
The full versioned record and pinned challenge concern a known human theorem, earlier human argument or selected partial formalization. AI transcription, proof completion under a supplied argument or checking alone does not qualify as a new central AI contribution. This decision is about the reviewed formalization, not a refutation of the mathematics.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
The full versioned record and pinned challenge concern a known human theorem, earlier human argument or selected partial formalization. AI transcription, proof completion under a supplied argument or checking alone does not qualify as a new central AI contribution. This decision is about the reviewed formalization, not a refutation of the mathematics.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
The full versioned record and pinned challenge concern a known human theorem, earlier human argument or selected partial formalization. AI transcription, proof completion under a supplied argument or checking alone does not qualify as a new central AI contribution. This decision is about the reviewed formalization, not a refutation of the mathematics.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
The full versioned record and pinned challenge concern a known human theorem, earlier human argument or selected partial formalization. AI transcription, proof completion under a supplied argument or checking alone does not qualify as a new central AI contribution. This decision is about the reviewed formalization, not a refutation of the mathematics.
Screening recorded: 2026-10-22 · Decision reviewed: 2026-10-22T07:39:59.456Z
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.
