The same density and current can conceal different magnetic fields
- What it is
- A mathematical-physics paper presents counterexamples to uniqueness from ground-state density and total current.
- Who did it
- Andre Laestadius and Mihály A. Csirik, with disclosed Codex and Claude assistance and a public Lean development.
- What it could mean
- Could clarify which information and assumptions a magnetic density-functional theory needs; the result does not invalidate density-functional theory as a whole.
See the check plan
Evidence & validation
From announcement to evidence
Discovery recorded. The source reports the evidence below; State of Proof has not independently reproduced the work.
Read the original work
Counterexamples to the total-current Hohenberg-Kohn conjecture ↗See the proposed checks
Compare the manuscript counterexamples with the formal statements, inspect the explicit background hypotheses, and distinguish globally defined potentials from the interacting monopole setting.
Independent examination not started
Peer review, simulation comparisons, laboratory evidence and independent replication are distinct. Inclusion here does not establish all of them; see the record’s source and current boundary.
How we distinguish research evidence →
The same density can conceal different fields
The paired clouds introduce non-uniqueness under opposite magnetic fields. These invented distributions are not the paper's exact wave functions, a simulation or measured electron densities.
Read the source · Abstract and constructions · identical density/current with opposite fields ↗- Source kind
- AI-assisted mathematical-physics counterexamples
- Evidence reported
- Manuscript constructions and derivations; Public Lean formalization with explicit background assumptions
- AI role
- The authors disclose using OpenAI Codex and Claude to develop proofs and derivations and to assist with exposition, calculations, references and formal verification.
- Human role
- Andre Laestadius and Mihály A. Csirik present the constructions, specify their mathematical scope and take responsibility for the manuscript.
- Source date
- ; added 2026-10-26
- What it claims
- The authors give three two-fermion constructions in three dimensions with the same ground-state density and zero total current but opposite nonzero magnetic fields. Two are noninteracting; the interacting example uses monopole fields and spatially patched potentials.
- Why this could matter
- The same density and current can conceal different magnetic fields Different magnetic fields can produce the same particle density and total current in these proposed two-particle examples. If correct, the constructions limit a particular rule for reconstructing fields from measurements and help researchers identify which additional assumptions it needs.
- If it holds up
- Researchers gain explicit examples showing where a proposed uniqueness principle needs additional conditions or a narrower domain.
- If it does not
- Review would identify whether a spectral argument, a domain interpretation or a formal assumption prevents the proposed pair from being a counterexample.
- Impact horizon
- Foundational · Mathematical physics · Density-functional theory · Formal verification
- Version
- arXiv v1; submitted October 19, 2026 at 21:09:56 UTC
- Why we tracked it
- An October 19 preprint supplies explicit counterexamples, a substantive AI-use disclosure and a versioned formalization with stated assumptions.
- Highest-risk dependency
- The interacting example uses an enlarged class of magnetic connections. Lean assumes stated background results in operator theory, analysis and geometry; the reported dependency check does not discharge those hypotheses or establish manuscript correspondence.
- Available artifacts
- arXiv v1 and https://github.com/ERC-REGAL/mag_hk/tree/v1 at commit ca7e200054aae749910bd7f80c48f6362d152ce7 (October 19). Lean v4.34.0-rc2 and mathlib 85e3a25e006c35636f0e53b0e9296caca2685bc0 are pinned. Formalization and coverage/assumption records are public; no build executed here.
- Current boundary
- Intake record only; examination not started. Preprint intake only; independent proof examination has not started. The formalization is conditional on explicit background results, and the interacting construction must not be generalized beyond its stated magnetic setting.