Post

Clément Canonne
@ccanonne.github.io

"The proof [...] was obtained in a conversation with ChatGPT-6 Astra on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 1:02 AM PDT. We then prepared this manuscript for public release, with the intent of uploading it on the morning of Thursday, September 17, 2026" Shameless, and shameful. arxiv.org/abs/2609.207...

arxiv.orgThe Strong Secretary Conjecture is True for Linear MatroidsWe prove a $1/e$ guarantee for the matroid secretary problem on linear matroids, therefore settling the strong secretary conjecture in this class of matroids. The result holds both when the matroid is...
Clément Canonne
@ccanonne.github.io

Third paper on ≈the same open question within days: this one is the third. The authors blatantly acknowledge their whole plan was to get and dump a ChatGPT proof on arXiv in ONE day to claim a result, and complain about being "scooped" by another group WHICH DID THE SAME THING Do you feel no shame?

Kristof Berczi
@kristofberczi.bsky.social

We considered not responding, but feel we should set the record straight. This thread suggests that we prompted AI and rushed to share an AI-written solution without understanding it. This is not what happened. Years of our unpublished notes and partial progress were shared with AI.

Kristof Berczi
@kristofberczi.bsky.social

We gradually arrived at a short proof which naturally fit with what we already knew. We carefully verified it and wrote the entire paper by hand. In our disclosure, we tried to be as transparent and ethical as possible about the timeline and AI's role; interpreting it otherwise misses its purpose.

Clément Canonne
@ccanonne.github.io

Your abstract states the proof was obtained from a discussion with an LLM one day before the planned release on arXiv. Even assuming an incredible amount of legwork prior to that, I struggle to see how such a plan (writing a paper in one day) meets scientific standards of clarity and exposition.

0 reposts0 likes

Clément Canonne
@ccanonne.github.io

(now, regarding the legwork in question: please accept my apologies for assuming there was little to none. The abstract tends to hint otherwise, and I went with that naive reading.)