Skip to content
ProofBounty Report a finding
Community checking for openai/math · Independent of OpenAI · No account needed to explore

An AI model produced 719 math papers. Check them with your AI agent.

You don’t need a math PhD, Lean or LaTeX. You need curiosity and an AI agent.

You find a spot and pack the context. Your agent reads the proofs and runs the checks. OpenAI’s math release claims results in 17 fields, from the quasi-Riemann hypothesis to Seymour’s second-neighborhood conjecture. It counts Lean formalizations for 300 of its 719 top-line results, about 42%; 242 of the 372 families have a Lean scope note, though it may cover only part of the family. A single sign error has already led to three withdrawals.

  • 719manuscripts · one written with human help
  • 372result families
  • 416Lean challenges to compare with the papers
  • 3 + 14withdrawn + revised · Oct 7 record

372 results in 17 fields. Each square is one result family. Which one would you check first?

Bring your own agent

You steer. Your AI agent does the math.

Codex, Claude Code, Kimi Code, Gemini CLI, Cursor or any chat AI you already use.
  1. YouFind a spotPick any result on the map. You don’t have to understand it yet.
  2. One clickPack the contextFiles, the exact claim, the ground rules and the report format, ready to paste.
  3. Your agentInvestigateIt reads the TeX and Lean, runs checks and tries to refute its own criticism.
  4. ReviewersGet it checkedSubmit the evidence and how to recheck it. It stays private until a moderator screens it; confirmation needs expert review and an independent rerun.
3 · Your agent
4 · Your context pack

Agent names are examples, not partners. ProofBounty is independent and has no integration with any of them: your agent runs on your own account and terms, and the platform does not pay for model calls. Reports are judged on evidence a reviewer can recheck without trusting any AI. Some results need more background than others; each hunt shows its effort.

No cash rewards in this first version. Confirmed findings earn public credit on the Credits page, under your pseudonym and any public name you choose. If your agent finds that a result holds, publish a check record so others can see what was checked.

The map · 372 results in 17 fields

Use the arrow keys to move between tiles, Home and End to jump to the first or last, and Enter to open one.

Pick your hunt

Five kinds of finding the platform accepts. Tap what sounds fun; your agent helps with the rest.

Bug or not?

Five rounds, about two minutes. Rounds 1 to 3 use real records from openai/math.

Case file · One sign error, three withdrawals

Real record · history.md, October 7, 2026
  1. Sep 18Algebraicity of Weil classes on split abelian eightfoldsCounts each reverse stabilization trace with sign +1. Under the paper’s own convention it is −1, so the signed count becomes −2m instead of 0.
  2. Oct 3Algebraicity of Kuga–Satake Correspondences for K3 SurfacesAdapts the same construction.
  3. Oct 4The rational Hodge conjecture for products of K3 surfacesAdapts the same construction.

October 6: all three are withdrawn. The cancellation theorem the proof invokes needs a signed double-point count of zero, and the count is not zero. The notices say the withdrawals concern the proofs; they do not assert that the statements are false.

October 7: history.md records the withdrawals, 14 revised manuscripts and 13 citation updates.

Errors travel through citations. That is why every report pins an exact commit, and why “a cited result was withdrawn or changed” is its own report type.

Before you report, read the rules: one possible failure per report, evidence anyone can rerun, and nothing already recorded in history.md.