# AI-Assisted Proof and Publication Disclosure Statement

Last updated: 2026-03-30
Status: Working statement; review against venue policy before each submission.

## Core Position

Using an LLM for proof drafting, search, refactoring, or explanation is not, by itself, disqualifying.
What matters is whether the final mathematical and engineering claims are:

- correctly stated
- honestly scoped
- mechanically checked where formal claims are made
- owned by the human authors

The trusted object is not the LLM. The trusted objects are:

- the proof assistant kernel or checker
- the checked artifact
- the stated assumptions
- the authors' review and responsibility

## What We Should Say

Recommended framing:

> We used LLM tools for proof-script drafting, search, and refactoring. Final theorem statements, assumptions, and proofs were reviewed by the authors and mechanically checked in the proof assistant. No `sorry`, `admit`, `postulate`, `believe_me`, or analogous escape hatches remain in the checked artifact. The authors remain fully responsible for the correctness and scope of all claims.

## What We Should Not Say

Avoid wording like:

- "The LLM proved it."
- "Claude proved the theorem."
- "ChatGPT did the mathematics for us."

That framing weakens credibility because it sounds like responsibility and understanding were outsourced.

## Practical Rule

- Trust the LLM as a drafter and search assistant.
- Trust the checker for formal validity.
- Trust human review for theorem choice, assumptions, and claim discipline.
- Do not make a publication-grade claim if any shortcut or unreviewed assumption remains.

## Review Trigger

Before any conference, journal, archive, or talk submission:

1. Check the venue's current AI/disclosure policy.
2. Check that the wording still matches the artifact.
3. Check that the statement does not outrun what is actually machine-checked.
