The paper introduces a method for evaluating the intrinsic interestingness of mathematical theorems by comparing the length of their proofs to the length of their statements. It trains a 27B language model to predict proof difficulty, enabling the generation and selection of more interesting theorems while significantly reducing overlap with existing Mathlib. The approach allows iterative expansion of a self‑building, machine‑verified mathematical library guided by quantifiable metrics.
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...
arXiv:2606. 28747v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent artificial intelligence (AI) systems have shown remarkable progress in mathematical reasoning.
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.
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%.
LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks. However, existing evaluations remain heavily concentrated on competition-style problems and often fail to capture how models behave on longer, more dependency-rich mathematical developments.
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and olympiad-style mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed.
arXiv:2608. 15979v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models produce outputs presented as discoveries - new proofs, conjectures, or molecules.
arXiv:2606. 28572v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The axiom of choice has divided the foundations of mathematics for over a century, but the distinction between classical and constructive proofs has remained a philosophical and methodological one.
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.
arXiv:2606. 09450v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks.
Large language models produce outputs presented as discoveries - new proofs, conjectures, or molecules. Whether such an output that appears creative is truly original and effective is hard to establis...
arXiv:2602. 16793v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In the past year, custom and unreleased math reasoning models reached gold medal performance on the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO).