Plectis Atlas
Search

↑ and ↓ move, Enter opens, Esc closes.

Lean statement

Constant-factor hardness of directed feedback vertex set

Lean is a language for mathematical statements and proofs that a computer can verify. This page shows one statement file from OpenAI’s release, possible paper matches and independent reports. The code-like names below identify the definitions or theorems selected by the proof-verification settings.

Theorem selected for verification: OAI.DirectedFeedback.main

Lean statement file: DirectedFeedback.leanShow on the mapOpenAI’s Lean catalogue does not list this as a main result; the release’s Lean notes for family 102 link it.

The Lean statement

The lines of the Lean statement that state the theorem, then the definitions in the file that it uses.

def MainStatement : Prop :=  ∀ A : ℝ, 1 ≤ A → ∀ language : List Bool → Prop,    InNP language → Nonempty (GapReduction A language)theorem DirectedFeedback.main : DirectedFeedback.MainStatement := by  sorry

A Lean statement states the theorem and leaves its proof as sorry on purpose. OpenAI’s proof is in a separate solution module, and a program called Comparator checks that proof against this statement.

Definitions needed to read it

Local definitions the statement names, followed through the definitions they name in turn. The match is by name in the source text, so a name reached only through notation can be missed; the full file is below.

  • definition OAI.DirectedFeedback.natBits line 8

    def natBits (n : ℕ) : List Bool := List.replicate n true ++ [false]
  • definition OAI.DirectedFeedback.pairBits line 11

    def pairBits (p : List Bool × List Bool) : List Bool :=  natBits p.1.length ++ p.1 ++ p.2
  • definition OAI.DirectedFeedback.FiniteAlphabet line 16

    def FiniteAlphabet (M : Turing.FinTM2) : Prop := ∀ k, Finite (M.Γ k)
  • structure OAI.DirectedFeedback.NPVerifier line 20

    structure NPVerifier where  witnessBound : Polynomial ℕ  verify : (List Bool × List Bool) → Bool  computation : Turing.TM2ComputableInPolyTime pairBits (fun b : Bool => [b]) verify  finiteAlphabet : FiniteAlphabet computation.tm
  • definition OAI.DirectedFeedback.NPVerifier.Accepts line 26

    def NPVerifier.Accepts (V : NPVerifier) (input : List Bool) : Prop :=  ∃ witness : List Bool, witness.length ≤ V.witnessBound.eval input.length ∧    V.verify (input, witness) = true
  • definition OAI.DirectedFeedback.InNP line 31

    def InNP (language : List Bool → Prop) : Prop :=  ∃ V : NPVerifier, ∀ input, language input ↔ V.Accepts input
  • structure OAI.DirectedFeedback.Digraph line 36

    structure Digraph where  n : ℕ  arcs : List (Fin n × Fin n)  loopless : ∀ e ∈ arcs, e.1 ≠ e.2  nodup : arcs.Nodup
  • definition OAI.DirectedFeedback.Digraph.IsCycle line 47

    def IsCycle (G : Digraph) {r : ℕ} (c : Fin (r + 1) → Fin G.n) : Prop :=  Function.Injective c ∧ ∀ i, (c i, c (i + 1)) ∈ G.arcs
  • definition OAI.DirectedFeedback.Digraph.Feedback line 51

    def Feedback (G : Digraph) (F : Finset (Fin G.n)) : Prop :=  ∀ (r : ℕ) (c : Fin (r + 1) → Fin G.n), G.IsCycle c → ∃ i, c i ∈ F
  • definition OAI.DirectedFeedback.Digraph.dfvs line 56

    noncomputable def dfvs (G : Digraph) : ℕ := by  classical  exact Nat.find (show ∃ k : ℕ, ∃ F : Finset (Fin G.n), G.Feedback F ∧ F.card = k from    ⟨G.n, Finset.univ, by      intro r c _      exact ⟨0, Finset.mem_univ _⟩, by simp⟩)
  • definition OAI.DirectedFeedback.Digraph.bits line 64

    def bits (G : Digraph) : List Bool :=  ([G.n] ++ List.range G.n ++ [G.arcs.length] ++    G.arcs.flatMap (fun e => [e.1.val, e.2.val])).flatMap natBits
  • structure OAI.DirectedFeedback.GapInstance line 71

    structure GapInstance where  graph : Digraph  k : ℕ  k_pos : 0 < k
  • structure OAI.DirectedFeedback.GapReduction line 81

    structure GapReduction (A : ℝ) (language : List Bool → Prop) where  construct : List Bool → GapInstance  computation : Turing.TM2ComputableInPolyTime (id : List Bool → List Bool)    GapInstance.bits construct  finiteAlphabet : FiniteAlphabet computation.tm  completeness : ∀ input, language input →    (construct input).graph.dfvs ≤ (construct input).k  soundness : ∀ input, ¬ language input →    A * ((construct input).k : ℝ) < ((construct input).graph.dfvs : ℝ)

No confident match with a paper statement

No paper theorem is paired with this Lean statement.

Why none: no paper statement matches the Lean text clearly enough to pair, so the closest candidates are listed below.

Statements in Constant-factor hardness of directed feedback vertex set come first because the release’s name for this Lean statement shares words with that paper’s title.

Other possible paper matches, closest wording first

  • Theorem 1.1 of Constant-factor hardness of directed feedback vertex set. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: dfvs, minimum, directed, feedback, real, digraphs and nine more. Found in the paper’s title, which its main theorem states: hardness. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: approximate, unweighted and within.
  • Corollary 8.3 of Constant-factor hardness of directed feedback vertex set. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: arc, loopless, directed, feedback, real, digraph and ten more. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: approximating, unweighted and within.
  • Theorem 1.1 of Constant-factor hardness of Min-UnCut. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: oracle, many, pair, undirected, length, encoded and 13 more. Found in the paper’s title, which its main theorem states: hardness and factor. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: unweighted.
  • Theorem 1.1 of The Factor-Two Hardness Threshold for Vertex Cover. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: vertices, undirected, explicitly, output, explicit, sat and ten more. Found in the paper’s title, which its main theorem states: threshold, hardness, vertex and factor. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: unweighted.
  • Proposition 3.7 of Constant-factor hardness of directed feedback vertex set. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: loopless, costs, digraph, bounded, positive, input and five more.

How Atlas selects possible matches: it compares words in the Lean statement with every statement in the family. It also splits Lean names into words. The release’s label and note receive less weight; a main theorem wins a close match. If the Lean wording yields no clear match, Atlas uses the catalogue description. This selects passages to compare; it does not establish that they mean the same thing.

Reported Comparator runs

Atlas has no report of an independent group using Comparator to verify OpenAI’s proof of this Lean statement at the version shown here. Each group reports its own Comparator run for this statement file. Atlas has not repeated the runs.

For a configured theorem, Comparator tests whether OpenAI’s proof proves the exact Lean statement. Some files instead configure definitions for comparison by name and type. Acceptance does not establish that the statement means the same thing as the paper’s theorem.

Carlos Toledo’s cert-machine

How they ran it, in their words

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 (.github/workflows/openai-math-kernel.yml), one j…

  • No verdict reached Their term: “REFUSED”.

    Re-run through Comparator did not reach a verdict (the job ended (failure) in the step "comparator, Lean’s kernel and nanoda" without uploading a result: the runner terminated it (GitHub: The hosted runner lost communication with the server. Anything in your workflow that terminates the runner process, starves it for CPU/Memory, or blocks its network access can cause this error.)).

    Reported 10 October 2026, at the release version shown here. Original verification report

What an accepted Comparator run would establish

If Comparator is run under this configuration and accepts, the solution proves the configured theorem using only the allowed axioms, and the Lean kernel accepts every step.

This configuration lists no definition holes, so every definition the statement uses is compared as it is written in this file.

Allowed axioms: propext, Quot.sound, Classical.choice

Acceptance leaves open whether the Lean statement means the same thing as the paper’s theorem, whether the paper’s other claims are correct, and whether the result is new. Those questions require comparing the definitions and statements, reviewing the paper’s arguments, and reading the earlier literature.

Do family 102’s Lean statements express the advertised result?

These assessments compare all the family’s Lean statements with the whole result OpenAI describes in its catalogue. They do not assess this statement alone. Each group uses its own published rules.

MathVet and cert-machine agree on how much of the advertised result the Lean statements express.

  • MathVet

    Finds the whole advertised result stated or implied Their term: “full”.

    The challenge statements imply the headline claim after unpacking definitions or one routine step. Their record

    Their note: None found; all five hardness statements are formalized as polynomial-time (Mathlib TM2, finite stack alphabets) Karp gap reductions from binary 3SAT (or an arbitrary NP verifier language), which is the standard NP-hardness encoding. Cone is ~190k lines and uses 'Std'/'Lean' (core) only; the OptimalMaxCut axiom_files flag is a comment-only false positive.

    Definitions the group asks readers to compare with the paper: Complexity notions are Mathlib's Turing.TM2ComputableInPolyTime (note: Mathlib's FinTM2 only forces the input stack alphabet to be finite, so every challenge adds finiteAlphabet : ∀ k, Finite (computation.tm.Γ k)), outputs are measured in explicit unary/binary encodings (gameBits writes every number in unary); alphaGW is defined as an sInf over ρ ∈ [-1,1) (equals the GW constant, checked); InNP is the certificate definition via NPVerifier with a polynomial witnessBound

  • Carlos Toledo’s cert-machine

    Finds the whole advertised result stated or implied Their term: “MATCHES”.

    The challenge statements state the headline as OpenAI wrote it. Their record

Read the complete assessments on the family page.

OpenAI’s own note on what this Lean statement covers

“The formalization proves hardness of approximating the minimum such set within any fixed constant factor. For every real factor $A\ge1$ and every language in NP, it constructs a polynomial-time gap reduction to unweighted directed graphs with the stated completeness and soundness separation. Thus a fixed-factor polynomial-time approximation would imply a polynomial-time algorithm for every NP language.”

An AI agent drafted an interpretation of that note, classifying this statement as “states a paper’s theorem as the paper does”. No human review of the draft is recorded.

Supporting material

The complete Lean statement file

101 lines, copied from release version fd4aeeb. A name defined in this file links to its line; pointing at the name shows its definition.

Declared in this fileOpenAI’s library at fd4aeebOther linked names open the current documentation for Mathlib, Lean’s mathematical library.

Links in the file: 19 to its own declarations, 61 to Mathlib’s documentation. 15 declared names also link to the same declaration in OpenAI’s library. OpenAI uses Mathlib version d13f23b. The linked documentation describes the current version, so names that have since changed may be missing there.

import Mathlibnamespace OAInamespace DirectedFeedback/-- Unary self-delimiting natural numbers. Outputs are explicit, not succinct. -/def natBits (n : ℕ) : List Bool := List.replicate n true ++ [false]/-- The explicit framing used for an input and its NP certificate. -/def pairBits (p : List Bool × List Bool) : List Bool :=  natBits p.1.length ++ p.1 ++ p.2/-- Finitely many stacks and control states are already part of `FinTM2`.This additionally excludes infinite stack alphabets. -/def FiniteAlphabet (M : Turing.FinTM2) : Prop := ∀ k, Finite (M.Γ k)/-- Polynomially bounded certificates checked by an actual deterministicfinite-alphabet machine, on the explicitly encoded input/certificate pair. -/structure NPVerifier where  witnessBound : Polynomial ℕ  verify : (List Bool × List Bool) → Bool  computation : Turing.TM2ComputableInPolyTime pairBits (fun b : Bool => [b]) verify  finiteAlphabet : FiniteAlphabet computation.tmdef NPVerifier.Accepts (V : NPVerifier) (input : List Bool) : Prop :=  ∃ witness : List Bool, witness.length ≤ V.witnessBound.eval input.length ∧    V.verify (input, witness) = true/-- NP is defined independently of SAT or any hardness assertion. -/def InNP (language : List Bool → Prop) : Prop :=  ∃ V : NPVerifier, ∀ input, language input ↔ V.Accepts input/-- Finite loopless digraph. Opposite arcs are permitted. Every arc is listedexplicitly. No symmetric closure or undirected-cycle convention is used. -/structure Digraph where  n : ℕ  arcs : List (Fin n × Fin n)  loopless : ∀ e ∈ arcs, e.1 ≠ e.2  nodup : arcs.Nodupnamespace Digraph/-- An actual simple directed cycle of positive length. A cyclic enumerationof `r + 1` distinct vertices supplies every successive arc, including theclosing arc. A 2-cycle is allowed; looplessness rules out length 1. -/def IsCycle (G : Digraph) {r : ℕ} (c : Fin (r + 1) → Fin G.n) : Prop :=  Function.Injective c ∧ ∀ i, (c i, c (i + 1)) ∈ G.arcs/-- A feedback set intersects EVERY actual directed cycle. -/def Feedback (G : Digraph) (F : Finset (Fin G.n)) : Prop :=  ∀ (r : ℕ) (c : Fin (r + 1) → Fin G.n), G.IsCycle c → ∃ i, c i ∈ F/-- Minimum number of vertices of a feedback set. No weights or auxiliarycost oracle appear in this definition. -/noncomputable def dfvs (G : Digraph) : ℕ := by  classical  exact Nat.find (show ∃ k : ℕ, ∃ F : Finset (Fin G.n), G.Feedback F ∧ F.card = k from    ⟨G.n, Finset.univ, by      intro r c _      exact ⟨0, Finset.mem_univ _⟩, by simp⟩)/-- Full explicit vertex and arc serialization, including isolated vertices. -/def bits (G : Digraph) : List Bool :=  ([G.n] ++ List.range G.n ++ [G.arcs.length] ++    G.arcs.flatMap (fun e => [e.1.val, e.2.val])).flatMap natBitsend Digraph/-- Output includes a strictly positive integer threshold. -/structure GapInstance where  graph : Digraph  k : ℕ  k_pos : 0 < kdef GapInstance.bits (I : GapInstance) : List Bool :=  natBits I.k ++ I.graph.bits/-- A strict YES/NO gap reduction implemented by a finite-alphabet machinewith polynomial runtime in the raw input bit length. -/structure GapReduction (A : ℝ) (language : List Bool → Prop) where  construct : List Bool → GapInstance  computation : Turing.TM2ComputableInPolyTime (id : List Bool → List Bool)    GapInstance.bits construct  finiteAlphabet : FiniteAlphabet computation.tm  completeness : ∀ input, language input →    (construct input).graph.dfvs ≤ (construct input).k  soundness : ∀ input, ¬ language input →    A * ((construct input).k : ℝ) < ((construct input).graph.dfvs : ℝ)/-- Constant-factor directed feedback vertex set hardness for all NP languages. -/def MainStatement : Prop :=  ∀ A : ℝ, 1 ≤ A → ∀ language : List Bool → Prop,    InNP language → Nonempty (GapReduction A language)end DirectedFeedbacktheorem DirectedFeedback.main : DirectedFeedback.MainStatement := by  sorryend OAI
Every extracted statement of the accompanying papers

The statements the atlas extracted automatically from each accompanying paper’s TeX source, with links to the full sources.

The Unique Games Theorem

Theorem (Unique Games Theorem)

For every fixed \varepsilon,\delta\in(0,1/2), there are an integer s\ge1 and a deterministic polynomial-time reduction from \mathrm{3SAT} to explicit unweighted Unique Games instances G_\varphi over K=\F_2^s such that

\begin{aligned} \varphi\text{ satisfiable} &\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \val(G_\varphi)\ge1-\varepsilon,\\ \varphi\text{ unsatisfiable} &\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \val(G_\varphi)\le\delta. \end{aligned}

The graph is simple and bipartite, and every constraint is a translation a(v_e)=a(u_e)+c_e of K. The alphabet, the degree of the running-time polynomial, and its constants depend only on \varepsilon,\delta.

Section 1, Introduction Read it in the paper TeX source, line 22
Show the TeX
For every fixed \(\varepsilon,\delta\in(0,1/2)\), there are an integer
\(s\ge1\) and a deterministic polynomial-time reduction from
\(\mathrm{3SAT}\) to explicit unweighted Unique Games instances
\(G_\varphi\) over \(K=\F_2^s\) such that
\[
\begin{aligned}
 \varphi\text{ satisfiable}
 &\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \val(G_\varphi)\ge1-\varepsilon,\\
 \varphi\text{ unsatisfiable}
 &\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \val(G_\varphi)\le\delta.
\end{aligned}
\]
The graph is simple and bipartite, and every constraint is a translation
\(a(v_e)=a(u_e)+c_e\) of \(K\). The alphabet, the degree of the
running-time polynomial, and its constants depend only on
\(\varepsilon,\delta\).

A Direct Proof of Optimal Max-Cut Hardness

Theorem

For every fixed \alpha with \GW<\alpha\le1, it is NP-hard to approximate Max-Cut within a factor of \alpha. This holds for simple unweighted graphs.

Section 1, Introduction Read it in the paper TeX source, line 39
Show the TeX
For every fixed $\alpha$ with $\GW<\alpha\le1$, it is NP-hard to approximate
Max-Cut within a factor of $\alpha$. This holds for simple unweighted graphs.
Theorem

Fix a rational t\in(0,1) and a constant 0<\eps<(t-B(t))/4. For graphs equipped with a rational probability distribution on edges, it is NP-hard to distinguish

\begin{aligned}\textnormal{YES:}\quad&\Val\ge\frac{1+t}{2}-\eps,\\ \textnormal{NO:}\quad&\Val\le\frac{1+B(t)}{2}+\eps,\end{aligned}

where \Val is the maximum cut weight.

Section 1, Introduction Read it in the paper TeX source, line 52
Show the TeX
Fix a rational $t\in(0,1)$ and a constant
$0<\eps<(t-B(t))/4$. For graphs equipped with a rational probability
distribution on edges, it is NP-hard to distinguish
\begin{align*}
 \textnormal{YES:}\quad&\Val\ge\frac{1+t}{2}-\eps,\\
 \textnormal{NO:}\quad&\Val\le\frac{1+B(t)}{2}+\eps,
\end{align*}
where $\Val$ is the maximum cut weight.

The Factor-Two Hardness Threshold for Vertex Cover

Theorem (Explicit cover gap)

For every fixed integer m\geq4, there is a deterministic polynomial-time reduction from \mathrm{3SAT} to finite simple undirected unweighted graphs with the following guarantees:

\begin{array}{ll} \text{the formula is satisfiable} &\Longrightarrow\quad \tau(G)<\left(\dfrac12+\dfrac1m\right)|V(G)|,\\[6pt] \text{the formula is unsatisfiable} &\Longrightarrow\quad \tau(G)>\left(1-\dfrac1m\right)|V(G)|. \end{array}

The output lists all vertices and edges explicitly.

Section 1, Introduction Read it in the paper TeX source, line 15
Show the TeX
For every fixed integer \(m\geq4\), there is a deterministic
polynomial-time reduction from \(\mathrm{3SAT}\) to finite simple
undirected unweighted graphs with the following guarantees:
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{the formula is satisfiable}
 &\Longrightarrow\quad
 \tau(G)<\left(\dfrac12+\dfrac1m\right)|V(G)|,\\[6pt]
\text{the formula is unsatisfiable}
 &\Longrightarrow\quad
 \tau(G)>\left(1-\dfrac1m\right)|V(G)|.
\end{array}
\]
The output lists all vertices and edges explicitly.
Corollary

For every fixed real \alpha with 1\leq\alpha<2, approximating Vertex Cover within factor \alpha is NP-hard. Thus, unless \mathrm P=\mathrm{NP}, no deterministic polynomial-time algorithm achieves factor 2-\varepsilon for any fixed \varepsilon\in(0,1].

Section 1, Introduction Read it in the paper TeX source, line 33
Show the TeX
For every fixed real \(\alpha\) with \(1\leq\alpha<2\),
approximating Vertex Cover within factor \(\alpha\) is NP-hard.
Thus, unless \(\mathrm P=\mathrm{NP}\), no deterministic
polynomial-time algorithm achieves factor \(2-\varepsilon\)
for any fixed \(\varepsilon\in(0,1]\).

Constant-factor hardness of Min-UnCut

Theorem

For every fixed integer K\ge2, there is a deterministic polynomial-time many-one reduction mapping a 3SAT formula \varphi to a pair (G,k), where G is an explicit finite simple undirected unweighted graph and k\ge1 is a binary-encoded integer, such that

\begin{aligned} \varphi\text{ satisfiable}&\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \OPT_{\rm uncut}(G)\le k,\\ \varphi\text{ unsatisfiable}&\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \OPT_{\rm uncut}(G)>Kk. \end{aligned}

For each fixed K, the graph size, full construction work, and bit complexity are polynomial in the bit length of \varphi. All constants are effective; no advice or oracle is supplied to the reduction.

Section 1, Introduction Read it in the paper TeX source, line 50
Show the TeX
For every fixed integer $K\ge2$, there is a deterministic polynomial-time
many-one reduction mapping a $3$SAT formula $\varphi$ to a pair $(G,k)$, where
$G$ is an explicit finite simple undirected unweighted graph and $k\ge1$ is
a binary-encoded integer, such that
\[
 \begin{aligned}
 \varphi\text{ satisfiable}&\quad\Longrightarrow\quad
       \OPT_{\rm uncut}(G)\le k,\\
 \varphi\text{ unsatisfiable}&\quad\Longrightarrow\quad
       \OPT_{\rm uncut}(G)>Kk.
 \end{aligned}
\]
For each fixed $K$, the graph size, full construction work, and bit complexity
are polynomial in the bit length of $\varphi$. All constants are effective;
no advice or oracle is supplied to the reduction.
Corollary

For every fixed real C>1, minimum 2CNF clause deletion is NP-hard to approximate within factor C. In particular, a deterministic polynomial-time C-approximation would imply \mathsf P=\NP.

Section 1, Introduction Read it in the paper TeX source, line 86
Show the TeX
For every fixed real $C>1$, minimum $2$CNF clause deletion is NP-hard to
approximate within factor $C$. In particular, a deterministic polynomial-time
$C$-approximation would imply $\mathsf P=\NP$.

Constant-factor hardness of directed feedback vertex set

Theorem

For every fixed real constant A\ge1, it is NP-hard to approximate minimum directed feedback vertex set within factor A on unweighted digraphs. More precisely, there is a deterministic polynomial-time reduction from an NP-hard promise problem to instances (G,k) with k\in\N_{>0}. The polynomial and its constants may depend on A. The reduction has the following alternatives:

\textnormal{YES: }\DFVS(G)\le k, \qquad \textnormal{NO: }\DFVS(G)>Ak.
Section 1, Introduction Read it in the paper TeX source, line 50
Show the TeX
For every fixed real constant $A\ge1$, it is NP-hard to approximate
minimum directed feedback vertex set within factor $A$ on unweighted
digraphs. More precisely, there is a deterministic polynomial-time
reduction from an NP-hard promise problem to instances $(G,k)$ with
$k\in\N_{>0}$. The polynomial and its constants may depend on $A$.
The reduction has the following alternatives:
\[
  \textnormal{YES: }\DFVS(G)\le k,
  \qquad
  \textnormal{NO: }\DFVS(G)>Ak.
\]
Configuration and file facts
OpenAI’s Lean catalogue
OpenAI’s Lean catalogue does not list this as a main result; the release’s Lean notes for family 102 link it.
Solution module
OAI.Computability.DirectedFeedback.Main
Allowed axioms
propext, Quot.sound, Classical.choiceThe axioms this configuration allows a proof to use. A replay shows which of them a proof uses.
Imports
Mathlib
Imports from outside Mathlib
None
Local vocabulary
15 local vocabulary declarations
Lines of Lean, without comments or blank lines
52
Second proof-verification program (nanoda)
Off in OpenAI's configuration.

Statement comparison

A shareable summary of this page: the proposed paper match, what the Lean statement expresses, and which reviews are recorded.

Plectis Atlas

Constant-factor hardness of directed feedback vertex set

Family 102: The Unique Games Conjecture and optimal approximation thresholds

No paper statement selected

no paper statement matches the Lean text clearly enough to pair, so the closest candidates are listed below.

The Lean statement says

def MainStatement : Prop :=  ∀ A : ℝ, 1 ≤ A → ∀ language : List Bool → Prop,    InNP language → Nonempty (GapReduction A language)theorem DirectedFeedback.main : DirectedFeedback.MainStatement := by  sorry

A Lean statement states the theorem and leaves its proof as sorry on purpose. OpenAI’s proof is in a separate solution module, and a program called Comparator checks that proof against this statement.

No paper theorem is paired with this Lean statement.Atlas has no report of an independent group using Comparator to verify OpenAI’s proof of this Lean statement at the version shown here.Statement review: none recorded

15 local vocabulary declarationsAllowed axioms: propext, Quot.sound, Classical.choiceopenai/math at fd4aeebwcook04.github.io/plectis-atlas/statements/DirectedFeedback.html

Recorded comparisons with the paper

Atlas records no contributed comparison of this statement with the paper.

Contributed Comparator run reports

Atlas records no contributed report of running Comparator for this statement file.

Compare this statement with the paperShare a Comparator run reportSuggest a change