arXiv AI By Alan Sorani, Ashvni Narayanan, Michael Shalyt, Tali Monderer, Rotem Kalisch, Hila Barkan, Elyasheev Leibtag, Shachar Weinbaum, Carsten Schneider, John Campbell, Ido Kaminer

Ramanujan Challenge Results: AI-Assisted Evaluation Pipeline for Multi-Format Proofs

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
4d ago

Ramanujan Challenge Results: AI-Assisted Evaluation Pipeline for Multi-Format Proofs

The Ramanujan Challenge benchmark tests AI on research‑level number theory problems, including unpublished results and open conjectures. Analysis of submissions shows that AI models, CAS, and formal tools can produce correct solutions that differ conceptually from official ones, even proving a published open conjecture. To reliably judge these complex proofs at scale, the authors propose an AI‑assisted evaluation pipeline that reduces false positives in natural language proofs from 23% to 6% and improves code judgment accuracy from 46% to 58%.

arXiv AI
Jun 16

Mask-Proof: An LLM-based Automated Data Curation Pipeline on Mathematical Proofs

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 Machine Learning
Sep 11

Measuring Progress in Reasoning Toward Mathematical Discovery with Automatic Verification

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 Computation and Language
Aug 27

MathAdv: What Theorem Provers Know, Reason, Formalize, and Generalize

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