Signatories

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

4180 Signatories
  1. Caio de Paula ORCID Master's, Universidade de Brasília
  2. Dami Lee ORCID Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University
  3. Bruce Reznick ORCID Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
  4. Hao Zhang ORCID University of Glasgow
  5. 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.

  6. Nicolas Dupré ORCID Research Assistant, Bergische Universität Wuppertal
  7. Alan Thompson ORCID Loughborough University
  8. Adrien Abgrall ORCID Université Paris-Saclay
  9. Daryl Q. Granario verified email De La Salle University
  10. Jorge Gutiérrez Universidad Tecnológica Gral. Mariano Escobedo
  11. Konstantinos Kartas verified email Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
  12. Erwan Brugallé ORCID Nantes Universtié
  13. Robert W. Bell ORCID Associate Professor, Michigan State University
  14. Kristine Bauer verified email University of Calgary
  15. Quang-Duc DAO ORCID Lecturer, University of Science and Technology of Hanoi - Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology
  16. Luen-Chau Li ORCID Professor, Pennsylvania State University
  17. Jiaming Chen ORCID Humboldt Universität zu Berlin
  18. Rui Alves ORCID Full Professor, Universitat de Lleida
  19. Dale Miller ORCID Inria Saclay - Île-de-France Research Centre
  20. Xavier Cabré ORCID Researcher, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats
  21. Alexander A. Voronov ORCID Professor, University of Minnesota
  22. Margarida Mendes Lopes ORCID Professor (retired), Universidade de Lisboa, Instituto Superior Tecnico
  23. Leandro Bezerra de Lima ORCID Professor Associado do Instituto de Matemática da Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul
  24. Waldo Gálvez ORCID Assistant Professor, Universidad de Concepción
  25. Dominic Bunnett ORCID Technische Universität Berlin
  26. Steffen Sagave ORCID Associate Professor, Radboud University Nijmegen
  27. 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.

  28. Tyler Mortimer-Wise ORCID
  29. Hugh Thomas ORCID Professor, Université du Québec à Montréal
  30. Tangi Pasquer IMJ-PRG
  31. Siyi Chen verified email University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
  32. Jun Luo ORCID
  33. Sylvain Brochard ORCID Maître de conférences, Université de Montpellier
  34. John DeBrota ORCID LMU Munich
  35. Matěj Doležálek ORCID Fachbereich Mathematik und Statistik, University of Konstanz
  36. Duarte Costa ORCID Master's degree in Mathematics, Universidade de Lisboa Faculdade de Ciências
  37. 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.

  38. Darren Strash ORCID Associate Professor, Hamilton College
  39. Fabio Bernasconi ORCID Professore associato, Sapienza – Università di Roma
  40. Daniele Turchetti ORCID Assistant Professor, Durham University
  41. 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 ?"

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

    Properly use AI to facilitate the research.

  48. 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.

  49. Giovanni Canestrari verified email University of Toronto
  50. Carlo Gasbarri verified email Université de Strasbourg
  51. Keerthi Madapusi ORCID Boston College
  52. David Fisac ORCID CNRS Postdoctoral Researcher, Université Paris-Est Créteil
  53. Danai Deligeorgaki ORCID Universitat de Barcelona
  54. Harun Kir ORCID ENS de LYON
  55. Bruno Klingler ORCID Professor, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
  56. Verónica Becher ORCID CONICET
  57. Carlos Florentino ORCID Full Professor, Faculdade Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa
  58. Chen BingKuan Student in Mathematics
    Comment

    As a math student looking to join research in the future, I hereby sign this declaration. I hope human mathematicians will be credited fairly and that math research do not become an antomated process running in the background of a privately owned ai facility.

  59. Ethan Harr verified email Purdue University
  60. Jordan Ellenberg ORCID University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Comment

    The declaration represents a clear statement of principles that I hope almost all mathematicians can join in endorsing. Many mathematicians, myself among them, are optimistic about the role artificial intelligence will play in mathematics research. But optimism is no reason to ignore potential negative consequences of these developments. Most importantly, we mustn't lose sight of our fundamental goal, which is to enlarge and enrich human understanding of the mathematical universe.  Our community, over many hundreds of years of working together, has developed a rough consensus about what it is we are actually trying to do. We don't spend much time explicitly talking about these values; now is the time to do so.

  61. Rosalie Iemhoff ORCID Universiteit Utrecht
  62. Chirantan Chowdhury ORCID Post Doc TU Darmstadt
    Comment

    A must-need action at the right time.

  63. Andreas Vermeiren ORCID KU Leuven
  64. Jürgen Fuß ORCID Hagenberg Campus, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
  65. Dimitrios Konstantinidis ORCID PhD candidate, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
  66. Frederic Rochon ORCID UQAM
  67. Flavia Bonomo ORCID Universidad de Buenos Aires
  68. Matt Larson ORCID Princeton University and Institute for Advanced Study
  69. Marc Lelarge ORCID Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique
  70. Yeongrak Kim ORCID Pusan National University
  71. Renpeng Zheng ORCID PhD Pure Mathematics, University of Nottingham
  72. Antoine Etesse verified email Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon
  73. Dario Gasbarra ORCID University of Vaasa Department of Mathematics and Statistics
  74. Benson Farb ORCID Ann Gillian Sheldon Professor of Mathematics, University of Chicago
  75. Fabio Durastante ORCID Associate Professor, Università di Pisa
  76. Federico Caucci ORCID Sapienza University of Rome
  77. Hsueh-Yung Lin ORCID National Taiwan University
  78. Damiano Manzini Université Paris Cité
  79. Jill Pipher verified email Brown University
  80. Xianyu Hu verified email Technische Universität München
  81. Jared T White verified email Open University
  82. Guillaume PIGNON-YWANNE ORCID UMPA
  83. Claudio Onorati ORCID Tenure-track assistant professor, University of Calabria
  84. David Aspinall ORCID Professor, The University of Edinburgh
  85. Zixi Wang University of California, Santa Barbara
  86. Arnaud Beauville ORCID Université Côte d'Azur
  87. Carlos E. Ferro FCEyN, UBA (Argentina)
  88. Bart van schie ORCID Delft Food Science
  89. Roland Bauerschmidt ORCID Professor of Mathematics, New York University
  90. Manfred Sauter ORCID Lecturer, Ulm University
  91. Marco Fava ORCID Research fellow, University of Warwick
  92. Matteo Galbiati verified email University of Milan
  93. Tijs Buggenhout ORCID PhD student, KU Leuven
  94. Maria João Oliveira Universidade Aberta, Portugal
  95. Guillermo Gamarra Segovia
  96. PEDRO TRADACETE ORCID Instituto de Ciencias Matemáticas, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas
    Comment

    Given the current state of AI use in mathematics, with certain AI developers suggesting that mathematicians could be replaced, apparently with the sole aim of attracting public attention and raising funds, I feel an urgent need for the mathematical community to unite and give a clear response about what we believe mathematics should be and why we care about it. AI can certainly be a powerful tool, capable of assisting professional mathematicians and mathematics students with many tasks. But there are also serious risks that must be clearly identified and addressed if we are to avoid harming our community and our shared endeavor. This declaration is a fantastic step in that direction.

  97. Riccardo SALVATI MANNI ORCID Full Professor, Universita degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza
  98. Yunfeng Zhang verified email University of Cincinnati
  99. Matthias Schütt ORCID Leibniz University Hannover
  100. Andre Institut de mathématiques de Bordeaux