OpenAI groups related papers into a “family”. OpenAI’s catalogue describes this one:
Resolves the Siegel–Yao conjecture for arbitrary capacities in every dimension \(2n\ge6\). Finitely many closed symplectic balls of capacities \(R_1,\ldots,R_k\) embed disjointly into an open ball of capacity R exactly when \(\sum_iR_i^n\lt R^n\) and \(R_i+R_j\lt R\) for every distinct pair i, j. (OpenAI’s Lean note)
Lean is a language for mathematical statements and proofs that a computer can verify. The assessments below ask whether those statements express the result OpenAI describes here.
Both independent assessments find that the Lean statements express or imply the whole result described above.Read the assessments
The release does not say which paper theorem its catalogue describes. The statement above shares the most wording with the description; the atlas has not reviewed that choice. Identifying it is listed under Questions awaiting review.
Reported proof verification
Two Lean statements in the release; independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for all these files at the version shown here.
We prove that, for all integers n ≥ 3 and k ≥ 1 and all positive real capacities \(R_1,\ldots,R_k\), the closed standard symplectic \(2n\)-balls of these capacities embed disjointly into the interior of a ball of capacity R > 0 if and only if \(\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^k R_i^n\lt R^n, \qquad R_i+R_j\lt R\quad(i\ne j).\) Capacity is π times the squared Euclidean radius, and each embedding is defined on a neighborhood of its closed source ball. This proves Siegel and Yao’s Conjecture A.
Two Lean statements in this family
Choose one to see it beside the paper theorem it is paired with.
For a configured theorem, the Comparator program tests whether OpenAI’s separate proof proves the exact Lean statement using only the allowed axioms. Some statement files instead configure definitions for comparison by name and type. Acceptance does not establish that a formal statement means the same thing as the paper’s theorem.
BallPacking.lean, the release lists it as a supporting statement.
theoremmain_theorem (n k : ℕ) (hn : 3 ≤ n) (hk : 1 ≤ k) (R : ℝ) (r : Fin k → ℝ) (hR : 0 < R) (hr : ∀ i, 0 < r i) : HasPacking n k R r ↔ PackingInequalities n k R r := bysorry
This file states the theorem with sorry, a placeholder, in place of its proof. OpenAI supplies a separate proof file. Comparator tests whether that proof proves the statement here.
BallPackingNecessity.lean, the release lists it as a supporting statement.
theorempacking_necessity (n k : ℕ) (hn : 3 ≤ n) (hk : 1 ≤ k) (R : ℝ) (r : Fin k → ℝ) (hR : 0 < R) (hr : ∀ i, 0 < r i) (hp : HasPacking n k R r) : PackingInequalities n k R r := bysorry
This file states the theorem with sorry, a placeholder, in place of its proof. OpenAI supplies a separate proof file. Comparator tests whether that proof proves the statement here.
Independent comparisons and proof-verification reports
Does the Lean express the advertised result?
MathVet and cert-machine agree on how much of the advertised result the Lean statements express.
MathVet and Carlos Toledo’s cert-machine independently assessed whether this family’s Lean statements express the whole result OpenAI describes in its catalogue. These are assessments of the family as a whole, not of each paper theorem separately.
MathVet finds that the Lean statements express or imply the whole advertised result (their term: “full”).
Their note:main_theorem (n ≥ 3, k ≥ 1, R, r_i > 0): HasPacking n k R r ↔ (∑ r_i^n < R^n ∧ ∀ i≠j, r_i + r_j < R), where a packing is k disjointly-imaged smooth symplectic embeddings (defined on open neighbourhoods of the closed capacity-r_i balls in ℂⁿ with the standard form, capacity π|z|²) into the open ball of capacity R; BallPackingNecessity repeats the forward direction.
“full”, in their words: The challenge statements imply the headline claim after unpacking definitions or one routine step.
Their method: An independent, model-assisted, pre-referee reading of each family’s challenge statements against its headline claim under a published rubric (PROTOCOL.md), with its own Comparator runs per challenge.
The formalization proves Siegel and Yao’s ball-packing criterion in every symplectic dimension $2n$ with $n\ge3$. For $k\ge1$ closed standard balls of positive capacities $R_1,\ldots,R_k$, disjoint symplectic embeddings into the interior of a ball of capacity $R$ exist exactly when
$\sum_i R_i^n<R^n$ and $R_i+R_j<R$ for all $i\ne j$.
Capacity is $\pi$ times squared Euclidean radius, and each embedding is defined on a neighborhood of its closed source ball. The linked statements include both the full equivalence and the necessity direction.
AI-drafted comparisons, with no recorded human review
Exact criterion for higher-dimensional symplectic ball packingsBallPacking
Unreviewed AI draft: states a paper’s theorem as the paper does. States the main theorem: in dimension 2n ≥ 6, balls pack symplectically into a ball exactly when the volume and pairwise capacity inequalities hold.
Necessity of the volume and pairwise capacity inequalitiesBallPackingNecessity
Unreviewed AI draft: states part of a paper’s theorem. States only the necessity direction of the packing criterion (a packing forces the volume and pairwise inequalities); the sufficiency direction is in BallPacking.
Who ran the proof-verification program?
These groups report running Comparator with the release’s Lean statement files. For a configured theorem, it verifies OpenAI’s separate proof against the exact statement; some files instead configure definitions for comparison by name and type. Each row is the named group’s report. Atlas has not repeated the runs.
These reports do not list the software versions, proof-verification programs, axioms, time or memory in separate fields. Any such details in a report’s prose are reproduced below.
Exact criterion for higher-dimensional symplectic ball packingsBallPacking
Two reports, all at the release’s recorded version.
Reported by
Their word
Their account
Date
Original report
cert-machine
“CERTIFIED”
Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.
What these papers cite in the release, and what cites them
These links come from the papers’ bibliographies. A citation records that one paper cites another; how each cited result is used has not been examined here.
Papers elsewhere in the release that this family’s papers cite
This family’s papers cite no paper elsewhere in the release.
Papers elsewhere in the release that cite this family’s papers
Each paper’s outside references are listed with it on its reading page, where each citation is placed. Every outside work cited in the release: References outside the release
Explain a result, compare statements or propose a correction
Atlas has no contributed explanation for this family yet. You can offer one with a GitHub account. You receive named credit and disclose any AI assistance.
Each button opens a GitHub form with this page and its source version filled in. Opening the form does not reserve the work.
Commentary on this family by others, dated and credited. It is commentary, not a finding.
An unsigned public tier list, the OpenAI Math Tier List, classes it as a proof and rates its significance, if it holds up, as “Solid publication, could lead to tenure”. The page says that nothing on it is verified.
Each item identifies a statement, definition or report that needs further review. Its link opens a GitHub form with the source version already recorded.
Read the Lean statement against the paper
An AI agent drafted an assessment of which part of the paper this Lean statement expresses. No named human review is recorded.Open the form
An AI agent drafted an assessment of which part of the paper this Lean statement expresses. No named human review is recorded.Open the form
Identify the theorem the catalogue describes
Family 343No single paper statement clearly matches OpenAI’s description by wording, and no review identifying the intended theorem is recorded.Open the form
Compare the proposed paper and Lean matches
Family 343Atlas records no review of whether each linked Lean statement and paper theorem mean the same thing.Open the form
Why this passage is shown
Theorem 1.1
In Symplectic Ball Packings in Higher Dimensions
How it was found
Its words were compared with the words of OpenAI’s catalogue description.
Words they share
symplectic
Review
Atlas records no review confirming that this is the theorem OpenAI’s description refers to.
The record’s reason
No unique candidate with at least three shared catalogue terms.
Independent assessment
MathVet
Their term
“full”
What their term means
The challenge statements imply the headline claim after unpacking definitions or one routine step.
Their method
An independent, model-assisted, pre-referee reading of each family’s challenge statements against its headline claim under a published rubric (PROTOCOL.md), with its own Comparator runs per challenge. Its protocol describes a planned error-rate study; this import does not establish that the study has been completed.
The challenge statements state the headline as OpenAI wrote it.
Their method
Every Comparator challenge re-run on Linux with nanoda switched on, decided by a preregistered rule; every family’s challenge statements read against OpenAI’s headline, clause by clause. Decider: Comparator (leanprover/comparator d03acab1 = tag v4.34.0, built with the release’s toolchain v4.34.1), lean4export 076e8e57, landrun 811cfff5, nanoda_lib 3a240721 — on GitHub’s Linux runners…
Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.
Date
8 October 2026
Version
at the release’s recorded version
Their method
An independent, model-assisted, pre-referee reading of each family’s challenge statements against its headline claim under a published rubric (PROTOCOL.md), with its own Comparator runs per challenge.
Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.
Date
8 October 2026
Version
at the release’s recorded version
Their method
An independent, model-assisted, pre-referee reading of each family’s challenge statements against its headline claim under a published rubric (PROTOCOL.md), with its own Comparator runs per challenge.