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.UniformSparsestCut.mainGap
The lines of the Lean statement that state the theorem, then the definitions in the file that it uses.
theoremmainGap : ∃ c : ℝ, 0 < c ∧ ∃ n : ℕ → ℕ, ∃ C : (j : ℕ) → Capacity (n j), (∀ j, 2 ≤ n j) ∧ Tendsto n atTop atTop ∧ (∀ j, 0 < glValue (C j)) ∧ ∀ᶠ j in atTop, c * Real.sqrt (Real.log (n j : ℝ)) / (Real.log (Real.log (n j : ℝ))) ^ 3 ≤ OPT (C j) / glValue (C j) := bysorry
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.
defNegativeType {n : ℕ} (d : Fin n → Fin n → ℝ) : Prop := (∃ x : Fin n → EuclideanSpace ℝ (Fin n), ∀ i j, d i j = ‖x i - x j‖ ^ 2) ∧ ∀ i j k, d i k ≤ d i j + d j k
noncomputabledefglValue {n : ℕ} (C : Capacity n) : ℝ := sInf {r | ∃ d : Fin n → Fin n → ℝ, Feasible d ∧ r = pairSum (fun i j => C.cap i j * d i j)}
Possible paper match, with no recorded review
Atlas selected this possible match by comparing words in the Lean statement with every statement in the family. No review of whether the statements mean the same thing is recorded.
Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: gl, opt, capacity, sqrt, log and pair. Found in the paper’s title, which its main theorem states: cut and gaps. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: one, absolute and demand.
Statements in Near-square-root logarithmic integrality gaps for uniform sparsest cut come first because the release lists only that paper for this Lean statement.
Theorem 1.1 of Near-square-root logarithmic integrality gaps for uniform sparsest cut
Theorem
There are an absolute constant c>0 and capacity instances C^{(j)} on n_j\to\infty vertices, with \GL(C^{(j)})>0, such that
There are an absolute constant $c>0$ and capacity instances $C^{(j)}$
on $n_j\to\infty$ vertices, with $\GL(C^{(j)})>0$, such that
\[
\frac{\OPT(C^{(j)})}{\GL(C^{(j)})}
\ge c\,\frac{\sqrt{\log n_j}}{(\log\log n_j)^3}
\]
for all sufficiently large $j$. The demand is one between every pair
of distinct vertices.
Other possible paper matches, closest wording first
Proposition 1 of Near-square-root logarithmic integrality gaps for uniform sparsest cut. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: negative, integer, sqrt and log. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: absolute and uniform.
Theorem 1.1 of Constant-factor hardness of uniform sparsest cut. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: real, cut and capacities. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: unit, sparsest, positive, demands, size and uniform.
Proposition 2 of Near-square-root logarithmic integrality gaps for uniform sparsest cut. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: sqrt and log. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: absolute, bound and uniform.
Proposition 7.1 of Constant-factor hardness of uniform sparsest cut. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: pair and gap. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: positive, bound, demand and size.
Theorem 3.1 of Constant-factor hardness of uniform sparsest cut. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: space and paired. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: least, one, positive, bound, size and uniform.
Theorem 6.1 of Constant-factor hardness of uniform sparsest cut. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: gap. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: bounded, demand and size.
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
three independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for this Lean statement file: Carlos Toledo’s cert-machine; MathVet; Neal McBurnett’s openai-math-lean-tooling. 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.
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…
AcceptedTheir term: “CERTIFIED”.
Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.
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.
AcceptedTheir term: “comparator-sandboxed-pass”.
Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.
Each challenge’s solution is built and checked by Comparator at the pinned release, on Lean leanprover/lean4:v4.34.1, recording the verdict, the check time and the peak memory; the run was still in progress at this snapshot (192 accepted, 224 pending).
AcceptedTheir term: “accepted”.
Re-run through Comparator with Lean’s kernel: accepted (the check took 399 s; peak memory 6.5 GiB).
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.
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 117’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.
Neither group finds that the Lean statements express or imply the whole advertised result. They describe what the statements express in different terms.
Finds part of it stated, or a narrower or weaker statementTheir term: “partial”.
Only a special case is stated, or a co-equal headline claim has no challenge statement. Their record
Their note: Only the Goemans-Linial integrality gap (real capacities, along a sequence of n); the NP-hardness of constant-factor approximation (the summary's first claim) is not stated.
Definitions the group asks readers to compare with the paper: NegativeType d is ∃ x : Fin n → EuclideanSpace ℝ (Fin n), d i j = ‖x i - x j‖^2 plus triangle inequalities (n dimensions suffice, standard); OPT/glValue are sInfs over sets that must be nonempty and bounded below (true)
OpenAI’s own note on what this Lean statement covers
“Along a sequence of instance sizes $n\to\infty$, the ratio of the integral optimum to the positive relaxation optimum is at least $c\sqrt{\log n}/(\log\log n)^3$ for one absolute $c>0$. Every unordered pair has unit demand, and the relaxation uses squared Euclidean distances satisfying the triangle inequalities. The result is an existential sequence, not a bound for every size or a computational hardness theorem.”
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
55 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: 12 to its own declarations, 28 to Mathlib’s documentation. 8 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 OAInoncomputablesectionopenscoped BigOperatorsnamespace UniformSparsestCutstructureCapacity (n : ℕ) wherecap : Fin n → Fin n → ℝnonneg : ∀ i j, 0 ≤ cap i jsymm : ∀ i j, cap i j = cap j idiagonal : ∀ i, cap i i = 0defpairSum {n : ℕ} (f : Fin n → Fin n → ℝ) : ℝ := ∑ i, ∑ j, if i < j then f i j else0noncomputabledefcutRatio {n : ℕ} (C : Capacity n) (B : Finset (Fin n)) : ℝ := (∑ i ∈ B, ∑ j ∈ Bᶜ, C.cap i j) / ((B.card : ℝ) * ((n : ℝ) - (B.card : ℝ)))noncomputabledefOPT {n : ℕ} (C : Capacity n) : ℝ :=sInf {r | ∃ B : Finset (Fin n), B.Nonempty ∧ B ≠ Finset.univ ∧ r = cutRatio C B}defNegativeType {n : ℕ} (d : Fin n → Fin n → ℝ) : Prop := (∃ x : Fin n → EuclideanSpaceℝ (Fin n), ∀ i j, d i j = ‖x i - x j‖ ^ 2) ∧ ∀ i j k, d i k ≤ d i j + d j kdefFeasible {n : ℕ} (d : Fin n → Fin n → ℝ) : Prop :=NegativeType d ∧ pairSum d = 1noncomputabledefglValue {n : ℕ} (C : Capacity n) : ℝ :=sInf {r | ∃ d : Fin n → Fin n → ℝ, Feasible d ∧ r = pairSum (fun i j => C.cap i j * d i j)}open FiltertheoremmainGap : ∃ c : ℝ, 0 < c ∧ ∃ n : ℕ → ℕ, ∃ C : (j : ℕ) → Capacity (n j), (∀ j, 2 ≤ n j) ∧Tendsto n atTopatTop ∧ (∀ j, 0 < glValue (C j)) ∧ ∀ᶠ j inatTop, c * Real.sqrt (Real.log (n j : ℝ)) / (Real.log (Real.log (n j : ℝ))) ^ 3 ≤OPT (C j) / glValue (C j) := bysorryend UniformSparsestCutendend 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.
There are an absolute constant $c>0$ and capacity instances $C^{(j)}$
on $n_j\to\infty$ vertices, with $\GL(C^{(j)})>0$, such that
\[
\frac{\OPT(C^{(j)})}{\GL(C^{(j)})}
\ge c\,\frac{\sqrt{\log n_j}}{(\log\log n_j)^3}
\]
for all sufficiently large $j$. The demand is one between every pair
of distinct vertices.
for all sufficiently large j. The demand is one between every pair of distinct vertices.
Near-square-root logarithmic integrality gaps for uniform sparsest cut
TeX label thm:main, build/source/main.tex, line 152
The Lean statement says
theoremmainGap : ∃ c : ℝ, 0 < c ∧ ∃ n : ℕ → ℕ, ∃ C : (j : ℕ) → Capacity (n j), (∀ j, 2 ≤ n j) ∧ Tendsto n atTop atTop ∧ (∀ j, 0 < glValue (C j)) ∧ ∀ᶠ j in atTop, c * Real.sqrt (Real.log (n j : ℝ)) / (Real.log (Real.log (n j : ℝ))) ^ 3 ≤ OPT (C j) / glValue (C j) := bysorry
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.
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.
Questions to resolve when comparing this statement with the paper
Both independent readers find this family's challenges state less than its headline, while the atlas's AI draft classes this file as stating a paper's theorem as the paper does; check which part of the headline it covers.