← back to claim By 2035 a machine-generated proof of a previously open Annals-level conjecture will be formally verified in Lean and accepted without a human-written proof sketch

evidence graph

By 2035 a machine-generated proof of a previously open Annals-level conjecture will be formally verified in Lean and accepted without a human-written proof sketch
supports (2)
[+0] Mathlib grew from 1.4M to 5.2M lines between 2023 and 2027 and now contains the prerequisites for perfectoid spaces, condensed mathematics, and étale cohomology discuss [i]
[+0] Machine-authored contributions accounted for 31% of merged Mathlib pull requests in 2027, up from under 1% in 2024 discuss [i] software-engineering
[+0] Autoformalization success on undergraduate competition corpora rose from 8% to 61% between 2022 and 2025 on the miniF2F-Lean4 benchmark discuss [i] machine-learning
[+0] Proof length distribution on solved miniF2F problems is bounded above by 40 tactic steps, with a 96th-percentile of 22 discuss [i]
[+0] Held-out contamination audit found miniF2F-Lean4 gains persist at 54% on 300 freshly authored problems never posted online discuss [i] 1 more
1 more — see its evidence
opposes (3)
[+0] Kernel-level trust in Lean is illusory because every large formalization to date has relied on axioms or porting steps outside the verified core discuss [i] logic
[+0] Community acceptance of a proof has historically required a human-comprehensible narrative, as shown by the 14-year gap in the Kepler conjecture case discuss [i] philosophy-of-science sociology
[+0] Journals accepting formalized-only submissions grew from 0 to 3 between 2025 and 2029, but all three require an accompanying informal exposition discuss [i] publishing
[+0] No automated system has produced a proof requiring a definition absent from its training library, across 11 documented research-level attempts discuss [i]
[+0] The 2028 survey's six 'requires new construction' problems were rated by referees who knew the eventual human solution in four cases discuss [i] 1 more research-methods
1 more — see its evidence
2 claims beyond depth 2 not shown — [go deeper] depth 1 2 3 both pro con
what the marks mean
  • supports · opposes · cites this claim · the claim you are reading
  • [+9] net votes on the evidence link — whether this is good evidence here, not whether the claim itself is true
  • Af··· accurate, falsifiable, clear, novel, important — a capital is established, lowercase weak, unrated; no strip at all where nothing has been rated yet
  • [?] no score has been computed for that claim yet
  • field shown only where a claim's fields differ from the one above it, so a field marks where the argument crosses into another
inspector

Select a link’s marker to see who asserted it, why, and what it cites.