Mathematical academia is usually a peaceful place, where controversy happens in the span of months, or longer. Debates take place one conference at a time. The last year has not been so. The use of LLMs in research has both sped up the pace of progress but also opened up many questions, including what it means to research mathematics and what is its goal (Leiden declaration).

The latest, most dramatic and highest stakes of this program has developed over mere hours. Little more than 24 hours ago, Tristan Buckmaster published a post on Mastodon comprising of three papers and a statement. The papers show a way towards proving the Navier-Stokes millennium price. I am not an expert in the field and I have had absolutely not enough time to even look at it, but my understanding is that proving a blow up in finite time of a forced solution of NS would be a counter-example of the millenium problem as stated. Buckmaster was a step behind, proving it for two other “stepping stone” equations (Euler 3D and Bussinesq). Not only this would be incredible news in and of itself, but there is way more to it. Buckmaster states that he is forced to publish ahead of his intended schedule because the result could be snatched from under him. Indeed, in his statement, he explains how the papers are a result of a collaboration with Levent Alpöge, an Anthropic employee, and have been developed with “significant help” from a variety of LLMs [edit: including OpenAI’s Codex]. Recently, OpenAI contacted Buckmaster following rumors that he had a proof. OpenAI stated they had a full proof, that they reached to with “minimal human input” and that happened to follow exactly Buckmaster’s technique. After prodding, the limited human input seemed to be false. OpenAI then admitted that a full team had been working on the matter and that their team started working on it after Buckmaster had his own main result. OpenAI, according to Buckmaster, refused to answer if the LLM they used had been trained on Buckmaster’s proof itself. They seem to have proposed to either publish “together” but excluding Alpöge in two different ways. Taking directly from Buckmaster’s statement because wording is of the essence: “Two proposals were offered to me [Buckmaster]. The first was that we post our Euler result, and that OpenAI post its Navier-Stokes result the next day. The second was that, after posting Euler, I alone write a paper presenting the Navier-Stokes result, acknowledging that an internal OpenAI model had resolved it. Sebastien twice asserted that he wanted Levent removed from authorship, and said it would all be simple if only it were not the case that, and it was so annoying that, Levent works at Anthropic. It was also said that if OpenAI posted after us, they would say that we deserved the Clay Prize, and that we were the “closest humans to the problem”. I declined both offers.”

After declining and stating he would go public, it seems OpenAI asked “Why would you ruin your career?”

He then went public with both the proofs “as is”, and the statement. By the end of day, OpenAI made their announcement, with a declaration on their LLM based, Lean certified proof of Navier Stokes: post in X .

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/67142082

The first release of The Brotherhood is officially out. This is the Architech. It's still not production tested. But it's open-access for the first time. Make some graphs, share with your friends, and track your journey across it. Let the wikipedia of pedagogy begin!!

It's an open-source software that you can use to build obsidian-like knowledge graphs. But unlike obsidian, this is community-built like wikipedia. And it also has git-like forking abilities built in for every graph. All graphs are released under CC BY-SA. Go to our website for more details.

Upcoming features would include -

1. More workspace features
2. Complex assessment methods
3. Work allocation algorithms
4. Federated hosting
5. Social hub

Here are some screenshots from this version

Another doctoral student recently came with a weird question: their supervisor told them that "examiners would be reassured" by seeing many connections on LinkedIn. I have many ethical issues with the framing and with LinkedIn itself (despite having an account there), but I'd love to know from experienced scholars (maybe examiners themselves): how and why would examiners be concerned with my LinkedIn account? @academicchatter @academia @phdstudents #AcademicMastodon #AcademicFedi

Please comment! Anyone who cares about scientific integrity or efficient use of taxes!

Specific anecdotes from researchers whose accomplishments would have been hindered by these rule changes are especially welcome.

Please comment and cite the relevant draft section (listed next to the summary points below).

This impacts so much research both domestically and abroad, please take the time to comment!

International scholars who benefited from research, a workshop, or a conference in the US, let the US government know why you being left out would have hurt research and US scientists! US grad students who would have missed out! Cutting edge research that would have been slowed or stopped had these rules been in effect in the past!

Summary from Elizabeth Ginex’s substack blog.

1. Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards (§200.205)
2. Peer Review Is No Longer Binding (§200.205(d))
3. “Gold Standard Science” as an Undefined Political Test (§200.205)

• All grants must include benchmarks for compliance with “Gold Standard Science”

• Agencies must prioritize institutions that have “demonstrated success in implementing Gold Standard Science”

• Institutional prestige and historical reputation are explicitly deprioritized in favor of compliance with this undefined standard

4. Active Grants Can Be Terminated at Any Time, for Any Reason (§200.340)
5. DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions (§200.300)
6. Broad Prohibition on International Scientific Collaboration (§200.220)
7. “Domestic-First” Framework for Research Awards (§200.202(e))
8. Applicants Can Be Denied Based on Organizational “Affiliations” (§200.206)
9. E-Verify Mandated for All Grant Recipients (§200.303)

• This adds significant administrative burden to universities and research institutions and could jeopardize grants at institutions employing researchers from abroad.

10. OMB Claims Direct Binding Authority Over All Agencies

11. Conference Attendance Now Requires Express Agency Pre-Approval (§200.432)

12. Professional Memberships Require Prior Approval and Must Be “Necessary” (§200.454)

13. Publication Costs and Open Access Fees Presumptively Unallowable (§200.461)

14. Public Communications and Outreach Severely Restricted (§200.421)

15. New “Issue Advocacy” Prohibition (§200.450)

16. Program Goals Must “Align with Administration Policies and Priorities” (§200.202)

17. Agency Heads Can Exempt Grant Competitions from Public Notice (§200.204)

18. Agencies Can Restrict Eligibility to Specific Nonprofit Categories (§200.202(d))

19. OMB Gains Direct Oversight of Which Institutions Receive Grants

From the Gaza Strip to Ukraine and beyond, violent attacks on students, teachers, and schools have surged in recent years, according to a report released Monday by an international coalition.

The report, titled "Education Under Attack 2026," documents at least 8,566 attacks on education and cases of military forces using educational facilities from the beginning of 2024 to the end of last year, a more than 40% increase from the previous two-year period.

"We believe the true increase is far higher," noted Felicity Pearce, lead researcher for the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA) report, in a statement. "Escalating conflict, shrinking humanitarian access, and widespread information blackouts mean many attacks are never reported."

The 2024-25 attacks harmed at least 10,600 students, educators, and other personnel across 83 countries, including 55 that are not in active conflict. GCPEA found the highest incidence in Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Haiti, Palestine, and Ukraine, while Cameroon, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Yemen had the greatest numbers of people harmed or killed.

"Cameroon continued to face overlapping security crises, which continued to heavily affect civilians in 2024-2025, marked by persistent violence in the Far North region and protracted armed conflict in the Northwest and Southwest regions," the report explains. GCPEA recorded at least 67 attacks on schools, 85 attacks on students and staff, and 11 reports of military use of educational facilities.

It's now been a decade since the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia signed peace accords, but GCPEA still identified at least 160 reports of attacks on educational facilities, 129 reports of attacks on students and personnel, and 107 reports of military use of schools.

In the DRC, as "armed conflict intensified" between the Rwandan Defense Force-backed March 23 Movement and the Congolese national armed forces—supported by Burundi's military and allied militias—there were at least 350 attacks on schools, 15 attacks on students and staff, and 313 cases of military use of facilities.

"Conflict in Ethiopia continued to impact access to education for millions of children," the publication states. GCPEA tracked around 100 attacks on schools and seven on students and personnel—though acknowledged monitoring and reporting challenges—as well as approximately 1,200 schools used for military purposes, a sharp increase from the previous period.

"As armed gangs in Haiti merged and gained control over more of the country, escalating violence included attacks on schools, school students, and staff, as well as the military use of schools, and disrupted education for over 1.2 million children," according to the report. Specifically, there were at least 339 attacks on schools, 55 attacks on students and staff, and 27 reports of military use of facilities.

In Myanmar, "as internal conflict intensified between the military junta that seized power in February 2021 and armed resistance groups," GCPEA tracked 212 attacks on schools, 18 attacks on students and personnel, and 84 military occupations.

As armed conflict between the Nigerian government and non-state armed groups continued during the reporting period, attacks on schools dropped slightly, to nine, while attacks on students and staff were consistent, at 14—but at least 90 people were killed or injured, and over 700 were abducted. There were at least five incidents of the military using schools.

"Israel continued to commit genocidal violence against the Palestinian population in Gaza," the report says, and there were increased attacks on schools, students, and teachers in both the coastal strip—where most educational buildings have been "severely damaged"—and the occupied West Bank. Across Palestine, GCPEA identified at least 620 attacks on schools, 2,400 attacks on students and staff, and 10 cases of the military use of educational facilities.

As Ukrainian forces continued to fight Russian invaders, GCPEA tracked more than 900 attacks on schools and at least one case of military use of a school. The report also points out that "1,611 schools had been damaged or destroyed since the start of the full-scale invasion, including at least 339 that had been completely destroyed," forcing 741,000 children to study in a hybrid format, and another 443,000 to learn entirely online.

In Yemen, "a fragile truce largely held through 2024 and 2025," but the continued battle among the internationally recognized government, Houthi forces, and regional actors meant there were still at least 16 attacks on schools, 62 attacks on students and staff, and 63 cases of military use of facilities.

Lisa Chung Bender, director of the GCPEA, told The Guardian that the report's findings "are a warning that the global norms that once protected children are collapsing."

"A warning that the world is drifting toward a place where even the youngest are no longer off‑limits," she said. "And a warning that if we do not hold the line now, we may never get it back."

The report urges support for the Safe Schools Declaration, and features recommendations for governments and civil society.

Its release follows the latest publication from the Explosive Weapons Monitor, which was released last week and documents at least 22,616 civilian fatalities from explosive weapons across 65 countries and territories last year. The monitor found 1,416 attacks on education in 2025, a 64% increase from 2024, and also highlighted Myanmar, Palestine, and Ukraine.

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.