A broad evidence atlas maps how mathematics is judged, written, and verified
RexDouglass · x · 2026-07-27
- The author says fields that do not study human behavior often lack the training, interest, and incentives to study how artifacts are produced inside their own institutions.
- The attached “empirical evidence atlas for mathematics” argues the literature is broad but fragmented across sociology of science, math education, philosophy, bibliometrics, reproducibility, formal methods, and AI evaluation.
- It is a broad scoping review through July 2026, not a preregistered systematic review, and it includes more than 80 reports and projects.
- The central asymmetry is that there is substantial empirical work on how mathematicians work, but very little representative measurement of material defects in published theorems.
- The taxonomy table maps evidence families to what they measure, from peer review and direct audits to formal verification and human-AI evaluation.
Related event: Metascience Examines Math Reliability: Not Exceptional and Vulnerable to AI(8 posts)→
More from Research
- Actionable Interpretability Workshop opens fast track for COLM 2026 papers — sarahwiegreffe · 2026-07-27
- Reasoning research’s biggest shift, from symbolic traces to natural language — denny_zhou · 2026-07-27
- A Reddit explainer breaks down MoE, KV cache, MLA and KDA behind Kimi K3 — MohamedKadri_ · 2026-07-27
- AI-powered search lecture argues multi-vector retrieval belongs in real systems — antoine_chaffin · 2026-07-27
- A classic OpenAI paper gets credited with helping launch the scaling paradigm — cloneofsimo · 2026-07-27
- A new LLM paper learns manifold features instead of linear SAE directions — Sauers_ · 2026-07-27