Vu-Le reports: optimality and uniqueness of the ambidextrous sofa

Vu-Le reports that every compact connected planar shape movable through both left- and right-turning unit corridors from the same initial orientation has area at most 1.64495…; equality identifies Romik’s sofa up to rigid motion.

Sources for this record

What was already known

Romik constructed the candidate in 2016; its global optimality remained distinct from Baek’s ordinary moving-sofa theorem.

AI involvement AI-led

Vu-Le directed the work; the project credits ChatGPT Pro 6 with the original proof and initial Lean draft, and Claude Opus 5.5 with compilation and simplification.

The contribution log allocates the original ambidextrous proof, Lean draft and repairs to models, with Vu-Le directing the project.

Importance Major

Resolves the ambidextrous optimum and uniqueness using a cap-area argument that incorporates Baek’s bound.

Limitations

No human has checked the complete proof according to the maintainer. Palomar reports mechanical checking of the recorded statement and automated statement review, not human peer review or novelty certification. AIProofWatch has not compiled the development or audited the manuscript.

Technical verification Formal (Lean)

A completed rigorous check is documented for the scoped statement. Palomar registry (Lean kernel and recorded independent kernels): Recorded Challenge/Solution theorems at commit 0f24fe48b4ca; mathematical novelty and human understanding are outside the mechanical check.

Formal checking

Registry reports checking the recorded formal theorems under its axiom/dependency policy; human fidelity review unassessed.

Checker
Palomar registry (Lean kernel and recorded independent kernels)
Scope
Recorded Challenge/Solution theorems at commit 0f24fe48b4ca; mathematical novelty and human understanding are outside the mechanical check.
Basis
Reported by the linked checker
Check date
2026-10-13
Evidence source

Checking a formal statement does not establish that it matches the original problem.

Human understanding Few

Few is the default when evidence for a higher level is insufficient. No sufficient account of a named human explaining the scoped central reasoning is established in this assessment. Missing disclosure is not evidence of little understanding.

Correction and publication history

2026-10-14 · publication

Pinned primary statement, proof outline, prior-work comparison and AI provenance reviewed. Credits date the public repository to 10 October; Palomar registration occurred 13 October. No equivalent public record; recent alert-worthy contribution, ordinary publication.

Read this published revision