Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics

Signatories

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

Sign Declaration
4181 Signatories
  1. Daniel Turaev verified email Technische Universität Berlin
  2. Leon Menger ORCID PhD Student, University of Notre Dame
    Comment

    Mathematical research is an inherently creative activity. As such, the time, effort and conversations required to reach a deep understanding of a mathematical challenge and, ultimately, to create new mathematics, are not problems to be figured out and solved. They are an expression of how deeply mathematics and human thinking are intertwined; a homage to the many curious minds that came before, work alongside and will come after us.

  3. Christopher Pirie ORCID Mathematics, Radboud University Nijmegen
  4. Andrea Conti ORCID Postdoctoral fellow, Heidelberg University
  5. Anna Sakovich ORCID Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor, Uppsala Universitet
  6. Sophie Rosenmeier PhD student, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry
  7. He Zhang verified email Peking University
    Comment

    As an early-career researcher in computational mathematics, I can distinctly tell the major shift underway in my field subject to the AI boom. I fully endorse the necessity and recommendations laid out in the Leiden Declaration, and hope mathematicians across all subfields in China will take the time to read and engage with this document.

  8. Roger Fujimoto
  9. Peter Spacek ORCID Postdoc, Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences
  10. Michael Kothakota ORCID PhD in Personal Financial Planning, Kansas State University
    Comment

    I unequivocally support the Leiden Declaration.

  11. Mohan Sridharan ORCID Chair in Robot Systems, University of Edinburgh
  12. Rui Peixoto ORCID Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon
  13. Gerard van der Geer ORCID emeritus professor, Universiteit van Amsterdam
  14. Qihang Sun ORCID IHES
    Comment

    This is only a suggestion. Turning it into concrete regulations, practical guidelines, and meaningful changes in the future will require much more work.

  15. P. Figueiredo ORCID Lecturer, Atlântica - Instituto Universitário
  16. Roland ORCID University of Groningen
  17. Thomas Adams ORCID Senior Scientist, TerraPredictions.org
    Comment

    A moratorium on the use of AI is needed. We must understand the consequences of what we are unleashing because at some point there will be no turning back, as the genie will be out of the bottle.

  18. Jeroen Hanselman ORCID Postdoc, RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau
  19. Philipp Joram ORCID Early Stage Researcher, Tallinn University of Technology
  20. Anne Aubry-Fromentin Mathematics teacher, Rennes, France
  21. Pieter Belmans ORCID assistant professor, Utrecht University
  22. JUN MA ORCID PhD student, Université de Technologie de Compiègne
  23. Bavanesh B S verified email Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
  24. Sebastiaan Terwijn ORCID Radboud University Nijmegen
  25. Floris van Doorn ORCID Professor, University of Bonn
  26. Peter Cameron ORCID Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, University of St Andrews
    Comment

    It is very important that the integrity of mathematics is not lost; we must maintain standards of rigour in mathematical proofs.

  27. Charles-Albert LEHALLE ORCID Full Professor, École Polytechnique
  28. Raghavendra Tripathi ORCID Postdoctoral Associate, New York University Abu Dhabi
  29. Hildeberto Jardón Kojakhmetov ORCID Assistant Professor (Universitair docent) University of Groningen
  30. Nicola Durante ORCID Professore Ordinario, University of Naples Federico II
  31. Jan van den Heuvel ORCID Professor of Mathematics, London School of Economics and Political Science
  32. Bodo Manthey ORCID Associate Professor, University of Twente
  33. Vilém Zouhar ORCID ETH Zurich
  34. Nikita Gladkov ORCID Postdoc, Université de Genève
  35. Maarten Solleveld ORCID associate professor, Radboud Universiteit
  36. Jeremy Booher ORCID Mathematics, University of Florida
  37. Daniel Bedats ORCID PhD, Institute of Science and Technology Austria
  38. Andreas Seeger ORCID Professor, University of Wisconsin–Madison
  39. Gert de Cooman ORCID Senior Full Professor in Uncertainty Modeling and Systems Science, Ghent University
  40. Roozbeh Hazrat ORCID Professor, Western Sydney University
  41. Fu-Gang Yin ORCID School of Mathematics and Statistics, Beijing Jiaotong University
  42. Rineke Verbrugge ORCID Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
  43. Angela A. Albanese Università del Salento
  44. Rithwik M R Harish-Chandra Research Institute
  45. Eleonore Faber ORCID Professor, Universität Graz and University of Leeds
  46. Prakash Panangaden verified email McGill University
  47. Maja Volkov ORCID Professor, University of Mons
  48. Guangxi Yan verified email Student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  49. Longyun Ding ORCID Nankai University
  50. Carlos Rodriguez Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences
    Comment

    I agree with the Leiden declaration broadly. Mathematical ideals and theorems in math papers all carry a history behind them, and it's beneficial to the reader when people acknowledge conversations or ideas (e.g. acknowledging a colleague for mentioning a work or a book that turned out to be very fruitful). Disclosing the use of LLMs, I think, is similar in spirit to this. Of course, every theorem in a math paper that you author should be read and trusted by the authors!

  51. Xiaofa Chen ORCID School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China
  52. Stephen Huggett ORCID
  53. Emily Norton ORCID University of Kent
  54. Xiaojin Lin ORCID Postdoc, Tsinghua University
    Comment

    Agree with the Declaration.

  55. Noam Zeilberger ORCID Assistant professor, Institut Polytechnique de Paris
  56. Anja Meyer verified email University of Manchester
  57. Dennis Nieman ORCID Postdoctoral researcher
  58. Linxuan Li ORCID PhD, Queen Mary University of London
  59. Bao Tang ORCID University of Graz, Austria
  60. Pedro R. López-Gómez ORCID Assistant Professor, CUNEF Universidad
  61. Dario Mazzoleni verified email University of Pavia
  62. Steffen Müller verified email University of Groningen
  63. Charles Garnet Cox ORCID Academic, Senior Lecturer, University of Bristol
  64. Simon Dieck ORCID PhD Candidate, TU Delft
  65. Sanbiao Dong ORCID Student, Southwest Jiaotong University
  66. Gionni Marchetti ORCID CEO, Postillón XAI
  67. Hao Chen ORCID Assistant Professor, ShanghaiTech University
  68. Leyi Jiang ORCID Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
  69. Philip Simon Schlösser ORCID PhD Candidate, Radboud University Nijmegen
  70. Sanming Zhou ORCID Professor, The University of Melbourne, Australia
  71. Wadim Zudilin ORCID Professor, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
  72. Devarshi Mukherjee verified email University of Oxford
  73. Lahcen Maniar Cadi Ayyad University MarrakechMorocco
  74. María José Pereira-Sáez ORCID Dpt. of Economics, Universidade da Coruña
  75. Qian Chen ORCID Xi'an Jiaotong University
  76. Luca Descheemaeker ORCID Vrije Universiteit Brussel
  77. K Sreeram Menon Student, IISER Bhopal
  78. Alexander Schmeding ORCID Associate professor (førsteamanuensis), Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  79. Michael Rothgang ORCID Postdoctoral researcher, University of Bonn
  80. Tim Oosterwijk ORCID Assistant professor, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  81. Sachin Chauhan ORCID Postdoctoral Researcher, Uppsala University
  82. Etienne Boursier ORCID Inria, Université Paris-Saclay
  83. Holger Reich verified email Freie Universität Berlin
  84. Matthias Walter ORCID Assistant Professor, University of Twente
  85. María Ángeles Gil ORCID UNiversidad de Oviedo, Spain
  86. Raffaele Vitolo ORCID professor, Università del Salento
  87. Thomas Blom Postdoctoral fellow, Max Planck Institute for Mathematics
  88. Gaspard Jankowiak ORCID Senior scientist, University of Graz
  89. Boris Doubrov ORCID Belarusian State University
  90. Zheng WANG ORCID Doctorant, Laboratoire Analyse, Géométrie et Applications
  91. Krzysztof Oleszkiewicz ORCID University of Warsaw
  92. Fernando Pestana da Costa ORCID Professor, Universidade Aberta
  93. Jakob Führer ORCID Institute for Algebra, Johannes Kepler University of Linz
  94. Todor Antić ORCID PhD student, Charles University
  95. Jashandeep Thind verified email Indian Institute of Science
    Comment

    Amongst the many ethical concerns that come from the corporations that have created these tools, the ethics of where these data centres are put, how much resources they steal from the local population should be of great concern. So must the light be on what goes into training these models. The hours and hours of manual labour put in by marginalised community workers in procuring data for these models. This mass exploitation of natural and human resources must be kept in mind whenever one is using these LLMs or other generative AI.

  96. Ana Martinez-Pastor ORCID Full professor, Universitat Politècnica de València
  97. Davide Barbieri ORCID Universidad Autonoma de Madrid Departamento de Matematicas
    Comment

    I think we mathematicians should also try to discuss in public about 2 other aspects of AI proficiency in mathematics. First is the reason why we have this: the main motivation for the industry was the control of hallucinations, which are the main technical drawback of LLM preventing them to be used in full automation in sectors such as healthcare, but also finance and the military. This is a path that, if it works, will produce more illness diagnoses entirely made by machines, more activities in the financial markets entirely made by machines, more war actions entirely made by machines. I am happy as a mathematician to see that this strategy is not working (for the moment), but I would add this to the ethical aspects of our giving contributions and feedbacks to this whole process. Second is the issue with young minds. Mathematics is also struggle, failure and stepping out of comfort zones. As such, it is a practice of humbleness, of consideration of implications of our statements (and actions), and ultimately of development of a critical mind. If we remove the struggle and the failure during the learning, because we provide continuous machine support to each young mind who first encounters mathematical problems: will it change something? Should we mathematicians, who have had a traditional education, occupy part of our time in thinking how to allow the people who are currently in ages 6-23 to have access to the broader formative aspects of mathematics, that may be greatly reduced by an "intuitive" use of AI? Young students asking an LLM how to solve a mathematical problem without doing the effort, may well learn how to solve that mathematical problem, but the overfitting with this procedure is extremely higher, and the struggle gets close to zero. Isn't this a societal long term risk too?

  98. Devi Prasad verified email Indian Institute of Science
  99. Marta Sanz-Solé ORCID Professor emeritus , University of Barcelona
  100. Emanuele Prati verified email University of Padua