The paper reports on the Ramanujan Challenge, a benchmark of research‑level number theory problems, and evaluates submissions from AI models, CAS, and formal tools. It highlights that some correct solutions differ conceptually from official ones and even proves a published open conjecture. The authors introduce an AI‑assisted evaluation pipeline that significantly lowers false positives in natural language proofs and improves accuracy for supporting code, offering a scalable method for assessing high‑level mathematical work.
By Alan Sorani, Ashvni Narayanan, Michael Shalyt, Tali Monderer, Rotem Kalisch, Hila Barkan, Elyasheev Leibtag, Shachar Weinbaum, Carsten Schneider, John Campbell, Ido Kaminer
arXiv:2606. 15258v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of mathematical problem solving and can even assist with research-level proofs, yet we still lack a scalable and reproducible way to measure step-level reasoning in long proofs across diverse sources.
By Jierui Zhang, Siyuan Tan, Xinhang Li, Longzhuangzhi Lin, Dailin Li, Chengfeng Gu, Xinping Li, Yaxian Hao, Shengjia Liang, Yuxiang Ren, Wenhao Liu
arXiv:2508.02208v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Evaluating the mathematical capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is a critical yet challenging frontier. Existing benchmarks fall short...
By Yebo Peng, Yaoming Li, Zixiang Liu, Zhizhuo Yang, Xinye Xu, Bowen Ye, Weijun Yuan, Zihan Wang, Tong Yang
The paper introduces HorizonMath, a benchmark of 113 largely unsolved mathematical problems across eight domains, paired with an open-source framework for automated verification. It focuses on the generator‑verifier gap, targeting problems that are hard to discover but easy to verify computationally, thereby avoiding costly formal proof verification or manual review. Using this framework, the authors found six novel solutions—three each from GPT‑5.4 Pro and GPT‑5.6 Sol—demonstrating that current models can contribute to mathematical research, while most state‑of‑the‑art models score below 10%.
By Erik Y. Wang, Sumeet R. Motwani, James V. Roggeveen, Eliot Hodges, Dulhan Jayalath, Charles London, Kalyan Ramakrishnan, Jakob Foerster, Cheng Zhang, Flaviu Cipcigan, Philip Torr, Alessandro Abate
arXiv:2603. 02668v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We present SorryDB, a dynamically-updating benchmark of open Lean tasks drawn from 78 real world formalization projects on GitHub.
By Austin Letson, Leopoldo Sarra, Auguste Poiroux, Oliver Dressler, Paul Lezeau, Dhyan Aranha, Frederick Pu, Aaron Hill, Miguel Corredera Hidalgo, Julian Berman, George Tsoukalas, Lenny Taelman
arXiv:2606. 03303v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong informal mathematical reasoning but struggle to generate mechanically verifiable proofs in formal languages like Lean.
By Po-Nien Kung, Linfeng Song, Dawsen Hwang, Jinsung Yoon, Chun-Liang Li, Simone Severini, Mirek Ol\v{s}\'ak, Edward Lockhart, Quoc V Le, Burak Gokturk, Thang Luong, Tomas Pfister, Nanyun Peng
MathAdv is a diagnostic benchmark for formal theorem proving that covers 13 undergraduate- and graduate-level mathematics domains. It includes Lean 4 proofs and up to three auxiliary tasks—multiple-choice questions, fill-in-the-blank problems, and expert-crafted transformations—to probe knowledge, informal reasoning, and robustness to problem presentation. Evaluation of current theorem provers shows formalization is a major bottleneck, performance varies by domain, natural-language guidance can help or hinder models, and equivalent reformulations reveal significant robustness gaps.
By Jiaxin Yuan, Connor Martinez Lockhart, Xiaoyu Liu, Jiaqi Wang, Chenghao Deng, Xiayimei Han, Vlasios Mastrantonis, Dmitrii Gudin, Shaopeng Zhu, Abdirisak Abdullahi Mohamed, Bilal Hamdi Aytekin, Jiewen Lang, Zezheng Song, Furong Huang
arXiv:2606. 13782v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have made notable progress in automated theorem proving, yet existing formal benchmarks remain limited in both mathematical coverage and difficulty.
By Lushi Pu, Weiming Zhang, Xinheng Xie, Zixuan Fu, Bingxiang He, Hongya Lyu, Xin Li, Jie Zhou, Yudong Wang
arXiv:2607. 06820v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in AI for Mathematics have focused largely on autoformalization and theorem proving, leaving the role of Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) in agentic LLM workflows underexplored.
By Pavel Snopov, German Magai
arXiv:2604. 03789v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in large language models have significantly improved their ability to perform mathematical reasoning, extending from elementary problem solving to increasingly capable performance on research-level problems.
By Haocheng Ju, Guoxiong Gao, Jiedong Jiang, Bin Wu, Zeming Sun, Shurui Liu, Leheng Chen, Yutong Wang, Yuefeng Wang, Zichen Wang, Wanyi He, Peihao Wu, Liang Xiao, Ruochuan Liu, Bryan Dai, Bin Dong
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably grade Olympiad-level mathematical proofs. It introduces a human-curated dataset of USAMO 2025 candidate solutions with expert grading and evaluates 20 LLM verifiers across multiple metrics, prompt styles, and inference methods, finding that current models still have significant shortcomings. To improve performance, the authors propose TROJAN, an iterative self-critique pipeline for generating adversarial proofs, and MABGrader, a Multi-Armed Bandit framework that outperforms the state-of-the-art ProofGrader by 26.4% in Quadratic Weighted Kappa and reduces grading error by 14%.
By Azim Ospanov, Zijin Feng, Ding Ding, Chengwu Liu, Haoli Bai, Jiacheng Sun, Lifeng Shang, Farzan Farnia
FaithSieve is a Lean‑assisted framework that fine‑grains natural‑language mathematical proofs into local reasoning units, extracts typed proof obligations, and verifies them with formal evidence gated by semantic alignment. It introduces two expert‑verified datasets—ProofLoc‑Olympiad and ProofLoc‑University—to benchmark first‑error localization. On these benchmarks, FaithSieve outperforms direct‑judging baselines, achieving 81.43% and 84.5% exact first‑error accuracy respectively.
By Ziyu Wang, Qiming Dai, Yishan Wu, Zaiwen Wen