Proof refutation: Amateur reviews of ambitious CoRR papers I guess that I read too many ambitious CoRR papers. The problem is that those papers are not peer reviewed, but often sound interesting and pass basic plausibility checks. Or maybe they don't, and I just need to improve my plausibility checks. Here is a recent sample of such papers:


Uniqueness Trees: A Possible Polynomial Approach to the Graph Isomorphism Problem
On the Group and Color Isomorphism Problems
Multiplicative weights, equalizers, and P=PPAD
NP vs PSPACE


After detailed reading, I often end up with the conclusion that the approach is interesting and might have some merit, but that it is insufficient to reach to huge ambitious goal announced or hinted at in the abstract. I sometimes write the authors of such papers my thoughts, but the typical reaction is to totally ignore my email such that I don't even know whether a spam filter eliminated it before reaching the author, the best reaction is an "thanks for your kind words, I'm used to much more insulting feedback". Being totally ignored feels bad, but maybe it is an appropriate reaction to "proof refutation"?

Are there good ways or places to post general feedback on "arbitrary ambitious CoRR papers"? What else can I do after I invested the effort to read such a paper? (And the hypothetical question: What could I do if I came to the conclusion that the result announced in the abstract is indeed correct?)
If you make an arXiv trackback you will not be ignored, in the sense that future readers of the ambitious arXiv paper may check the trackbacks.

You even get a mild form of peer review for your posts, since they write:


  Because of widespread Trackback spam we have a semi-automated editorial process that approves trackbacks for display. 


As for where to post your review, Recent trackbacks currently returns a mix of blogs, magazines, and news sites.