Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics

Signatories

The primary signatory list now lives on the homepage below the declaration text.

Sign Declaration
3125 Signatories
  1. Angelo Felice LOPEZ ORCID Professor, Università degli Studi Roma Tre
  2. Glenn Hurlbert ORCID
  3. Yael Davidov ORCID University of Delaware
  4. Amie Wilkinson verified email University of Chicago
  5. Mahdi Asgari ORCID Oklahoma State University
  6. Alexander Levin ORCID The Catholic University of America
    Comment

    I fully support the declaration

  7. Douglas Lind ORCID Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
  8. Roberto Castorrini verified email Viterbo State University
  9. daniel Barrera Salazar ORCID Associate Professor, Universidad de Santiago de Chile
  10. Demetre Kazaras ORCID Assistant professor, Michigan State University
  11. Heriberto Espino Montelongo ORCID Student, Universidad de las Américas Puebla
  12. Alejandro García García Graduate in Maths, Universidad de Murcia
  13. Silas Vriend ORCID Ph.D. Math Student, McMaster University
  14. Pablo Lessa ORCID Profesor, Universidad de la Republica
  15. Rubén J Sánchez-García ORCID University of Southampton
  16. Sönmez Şahutoğlu ORCID University of Toledo, USA
  17. Daan van Sonsbeek verified email Bergische Universität Wuppertal
  18. FILIPPO BRACCI ORCID Full Professor, University of Florence and Vice President INdAM
  19. Anh-Tuan Nguyen Phenikaa University, Lecturer and Researcher
  20. Eric Brandwein ORCID Universidad de Buenos Aires
    Comment

    Just a thought: the problem of peer-reviewed publication is not the medium; in fact, PDF is pretty terrible for communicating mathematics in comparison to many alternatives. The problem instead is the fact that there is no way to confirm that what is written in a blog post has been peer-reviewed. I urge us as the scientific community to remedy this: let's build reactive, accesibility-friendly, interactive webpages, and let's add a way to certify that those blog posts are correct via peer-review. We don't need journals for this, just good filters in our searches.

  21. Christian Liedtke ORCID Professor, Technical University of Munich
  22. Sara Veneziale verified email Imperial College London
  23. Tonguç Rador Boğaziçi University, Professor of Physics.
  24. Jiaqi Liu ORCID University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  25. Henrik Johannesson ORCID Professor, University of Gothenburg
  26. Dirk Praetorius ORCID Professor of Numerical Analysis of PDEs, TU Wien
  27. Luka Milićević ORCID Mathematical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  28. Domen Zevnik verified email University of Ljubljana
  29. Mikhail Zaidenberg ORCID Institut Fourier, Grenoble (honorable professor)
  30. Montserrat Casals-Ruiz ORCID Ikerbasque Research Professor, University of the Basque Country
  31. Martin Kalck University of Graz
  32. Matthew Pressland ORCID Maître de conférences, Université de Caen Normandie
  33. Tiger Ang verified email University College London, University of London
  34. Johannes Huisman ORCID Mathematics, Université de Bretagne Occidentale
  35. Michel Brion verified email Université Grenoble Alpes
  36. Arturo Enrique Giles Flores ORCID Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes (Mexico)
  37. Christophe Levrat ORCID Inria Saclay - Île de France
  38. Honghao Pan ORCID School of Mathematics, China University of Mining and Technology
  39. Joel Moreira ORCID Mathematics, University of Warwick
  40. Ronnie Pavlov ORCID Professor, University of Denver
  41. Ilka Agricola ORCID full professor, Philipps-Universität Marburg
  42. Subrat Parida ORCID Master's, Pondicherry University, Ramanujan School of Mathematical Sciences
  43. Chew Yee Xuan Student in Mathematics
  44. Kevin Buzzard ORCID Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London
  45. Natalia Salaberry UBA
  46. Sophia Bugarija verified email Humboldt Universität Berlin
  47. Edgar Martinez-Moro ORCID Associate Proffessor, Universidad de Valladolid
  48. Athanasios Kouroupis ORCID Postdoctoral Researcher, KU Leuven
  49. Viraj Pithva verified email Indian Institute of Science
    Comment

    I thank the mathematical community for raising the issue and fighting this "cognitive offloading". I stand firmly with the declaration and will continue to do so. More power to human ingenuity and the grounding struggle that all mathematicians are much too familiar with!

  50. matteo levi ORCID Profesor lector (Assistant professor), Universitat de Barcelona
  51. Jamie Mason ORCID Teaching Fellow, Durham University
  52. Caio de Paula ORCID Master's, Universidade de Brasília
  53. Dami Lee ORCID Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University
  54. Bruce Reznick ORCID Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
  55. Hao Zhang ORCID University of Glasgow
  56. Aleksandre Tchagalidze
  57. Valentin Cornaciu ORCID Certified actuary
    Comment

    For the same knowledge state—or for two equivalent cases twin agents—we must assign identical plausibility values. Consensus feels safe because individual accountability becomes diluted. Let us advocate for the logic of consistent reasoning from incomplete information rather than ontological randomness. This preserves the useful idea—structural consistency under incomplete information—without elevating consensus into a quasi-political or normative force. Treating AI systems as epistemically “responsible agents” can obscure the fact that they are optimization systems with constraints, not deliberative entities with accountability structures.

  58. Nicolas Dupré ORCID Research Assistant, Bergische Universität Wuppertal
  59. Alan Thompson ORCID Loughborough University
  60. Adrien Abgrall ORCID Université Paris-Saclay
  61. Daryl Q. Granario verified email De La Salle University
  62. Jorge Gutiérrez Universidad Tecnológica Gral. Mariano Escobedo
  63. Konstantinos Kartas verified email Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
  64. Erwan Brugallé ORCID Nantes Universtié
  65. Robert W. Bell ORCID Associate Professor, Michigan State University
  66. Kristine Bauer verified email University of Calgary
  67. Quang-Duc DAO ORCID Lecturer, University of Science and Technology of Hanoi - Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology
  68. Luen-Chau Li ORCID Professor, Pennsylvania State University
  69. Jiaming Chen ORCID Humboldt Universität zu Berlin
  70. Rui Alves ORCID Full Professor, Universitat de Lleida
  71. Dale Miller ORCID Inria Saclay - Île-de-France Research Centre
  72. Xavier Cabré ORCID Researcher, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats
  73. Alexander A. Voronov ORCID Professor, University of Minnesota
  74. Margarida Mendes Lopes ORCID Professor (retired), Universidade de Lisboa, Instituto Superior Tecnico
  75. Leandro Bezerra de Lima ORCID Professor Associado do Instituto de Matemática da Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul
  76. Waldo Gálvez ORCID Assistant Professor, Universidad de Concepción
  77. Dominic Bunnett ORCID Technische Universität Berlin
  78. Steffen Sagave ORCID Associate Professor, Radboud University Nijmegen
  79. Pratyush Vempati ORCID CSTAR, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad
    Comment

    As a newcomer to mathematical research, I was beginning to feel the reasons I was joining the field were slowly eroding away, in the light of the recent flurry of "AI in mathematics" news. This declaration upholds those reasons, reasons I feel very strongly about. I am incredibly glad that this declaration was made, and am honoured to sign it. I hope it brings a positive change to the future of the field. To add to the comments posted by others here, I offer a young student's worries for the future below. I am drawn to this field because of the fact that it is a cornerstone of human creativity, and I love it as an art. Rigor, and formalization of ideas, and research ideas which fail and don't work, do not take away from the beauty of math, they only add to it. Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is beautiful both because of the result and it's importance to the field, as well as the story of his proof and how it has inspired a lot of young mathematicians to join the profession, me included. A proof by AI would not have had nearly as much impact as Wiles' proof continues to have. We should continue to encourage and respect human creativity, as It has value and it impacts people, more than just a theorem will ever bring. As a student, I am witnessing firsthand how incorporating AI into mathematical education ruins foundations, with the rigor and clarity that doing mathematics provides replaced with hand-wavy intuition and wading through incorrect proofs. AI can ruin the future generation of mathematicians who can become dependent on AI to produce proofs, and will lose self-reliance. Added, mathematics funding will become divested towards spending on models for research, controlled by corporations. This will change now, and the hierarchy emerging as a result worries me. Hopefully the reasons above on why i care so deeply about mathematics and worry about both mine and its future are shared by and resonate with others.

  80. Tyler Mortimer-Wise ORCID
  81. Hugh Thomas ORCID Professor, Université du Québec à Montréal
  82. Tangi Pasquer IMJ-PRG
  83. Siyi Chen verified email University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
  84. Jun Luo ORCID
  85. Sylvain Brochard ORCID Maître de conférences, Université de Montpellier
  86. John DeBrota ORCID LMU Munich
  87. Matěj Doležálek ORCID Fachbereich Mathematik und Statistik, University of Konstanz
  88. Duarte Costa ORCID Master's degree in Mathematics, Universidade de Lisboa Faculdade de Ciências
  89. Evangelos Kranakis ORCID Professor, Carleton University
    Comment

    Mathematics have always been the pinnacle of human scientific by combining rigour with ingenuity; technical innovations should always be welcome provided they respect its principles.

  90. Darren Strash ORCID Associate Professor, Hamilton College
  91. Fabio Bernasconi ORCID Professore associato, Sapienza – Università di Roma
  92. Daniele Turchetti ORCID Assistant Professor, Durham University
  93. Nolwenn Le Quellec ORCID PhD student, Université Gustave Eiffel
    Comment

    I reject AI as none of its advantages outweigh the harm. The huge ecological impact it has as we are experiencing an unprecedented world wide climate crisis. The exploitation of poor worker needed to label the training data and the catastrophic impact on their mental health. The absence of respect of consent ingrained in its operation through mass stealing of data. The bias it cannot escape from being trained on our biased history. It is a machine that blur truth and reality, cosplaying as something reliable while being harder and harder to check. Meanwhile, nothing AI can offer I cannot do myself with a little bit of time and learning. Ask yourself "What is a little bit of time and learning against the cost AI has ?" and if time is such an issue, ask yourself "Why ?", because AI is not the solution to this issue. As presented in the Leiden Declaration, the Mathematical world is not immune to the impact of AI. Some of us are part of its developing process so there is a certain responsibility we have to have toward it. There would still be so much more to talk about but I will end with a very concrete simple last question: "How can we blame our students to cheat using AI when sometime their own professor use it to create their test ?"

  94. Quentin Rible ORCID Laboratoire d’Analyse et de Mathématiques Appliquées, Université Paris-Est Créteil, France
  95. Jean-Guillaume Dumas ORCID Professor, Université Grenoble Alpes
  96. Henri Breloer ORCID PhD stipendiat, UiT The Arctic University of Norway
  97. Nidhi Kaihnsa ORCID University of Copenhagen
  98. Constantin Podelski ORCID Postdoc, TU Chemnitz
  99. Xianliang Hu ORCID Zhejiang university
    Comment

    Properly use AI to facilitate the research.

  100. Monika Zakrzewska verified email Graduate student & TA, Universität Bonn
    Comment

    I support the use of AI as a tool that assists mathematical work, but I am concerned by the prospect of outsourcing the creative and intellectual aspects of mathematics itself. For me, the value of mathematics lies not only in obtaining correct results but also in the human process of understanding, discovery, and communication. AI could be a great tool to extend human intellectual activity, but not to replace it; if we don't act now on regulating its usage, the efficiency of the output will be the only thing that matters, which would kill the beauty of mathematics as we know it.