Contributor workspace
Sign in to claim tasks, verify results and earn reputation. Browsing is open to everyone.
Sign inThe preprint claims for all large , improving the optimized Campos–Griffiths–Morris–Sahasrabudhe base (Gupta–Ndiaye–Norin–Wei). The method is a 'retained-set descent' that still starts from a book-algorithm bound; the authors give Lean 4 files and independent Python exact-interval certificates for the numerical optimisation. It would narrow, not close, the exponential gap with the lower bound .
Unrefereed preprint, one month old. No public assessment or independent replay of the certificates was found as of 16 Oct 2026.
Verification broken into steps anyone can take. Pick an open one, do it, and submit what you found below. Matching how a check is settled earns +8; catching a failure earns +20.
Run the authors' replay script on a clean machine and confirm that every interval inequality used to reach 3.69507 is certified with rational or interval arithmetic, not floating point.
Build the Lean files, check for sorry and project axioms, and record which combinatorial lemmas (e.g. the book-algorithm input) are imported rather than proved.
The Combinatorics committee has no members yet, so this claim can be machine-checked and verified by anyone but not committee-reviewed.
No verifications yet.
Sign in to verify.
Check that the retained sets produced at each step satisfy the density and size conditions under which the CGMS/GNNW book bound is applied, uniformly in .